Lots of interesting data and "RH" book excerpts can be found at the above links, including the complete lengthy "Introduction" to the book, which almost seems like a whole book unto itself....and it provides many excellent and astute VB passages (naturally).
HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS THAT I'VE CULLED FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (and God help all CTers of the world...because they'll need His devine intervention to escape "Reclaiming History" unscathed):
[V. BUGLIOSI ON...]
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me.
As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others.
The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity.
I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never came across.
Some may say it is petty, perhaps even improper, to criticize others in writing a book about the case. I don't agree. The Kennedy assassination is a historical event. And when anyone purporting to write the history of the event fabricates, distorts, or misleads about the facts of the case, it is not only advisable but incumbent upon those who subsequently write about the event to point out these lies and distortions. If they do not, the lies themselves will harden in the future into "facts" and millions will be misled.
This is precisely what has already happened in this case. After all, if future writers don't correct the errors and distortions of their predecessors, then who will? If they don't have the responsibility to do this, then who does?
Therefore, if those who follow me find that in writing this book I myself have taken liberties with the truth, I would expect them to bring this to the attention of their readers.
Re-interpretation of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination will be a never-ending process, and interpretation and analysis are the very heart of this book.
The supreme irony about the Kennedy assassination is that although belief in a conspiracy knows no ideological or political boundaries, most conspiracy theorists I have met look up to Kennedy and his legacy, and many revere him. How very odd, then, that so many of them have virtually dedicated their lives to exonerating the man who killed their hero.
To counter the incontrovertible evidence pointing to the guilt of the person who cold-bloodedly murdered Kennedy, they come up with extraordinary and often ludicrous arguments. They defend Oswald with a protective passion normally reserved only for one's immediate family.
Indeed, in their mind, everyone (any person or group will do, for them) other than Oswald is responsible for Kennedy's death. Obviously, the primary motivation of the conspiracy theorists is not to defend Oswald but to attack the Warren Commission, but in the process they go completely overboard in defending Lee Harvey Oswald the person.
But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren Commission's findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a different conclusion.
Always believing there was a massive federal effort to "whitewash" (the title of {Harold Weisberg's} first book on the assassination in 1965) the facts of Kennedy's murder for the American public, and to prevent researchers like himself from finding out what really happened, Weisberg writes on the last page (page 404) of his third book on the assassination ("Oswald in New Orleans") that for the first time he saw "the shadow of a happy ending".
Till the end, he still believed that there was a conspiracy in the assassination, but candidly acknowledged to me in 1999, after devoting much of his life to the case, that "much as it looks like Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from being an agent".
The vast conspiracy community, which disbelieves everything in the Warren Report except the page numbers, should (but won't) be influenced in their thinking by such a dramatic admission from their most esteemed titan, one who relentlessly, obsessively and, as opposed to most of his peers, honestly put every aspect of the case under a microscope for almost four decades.
The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained.
All humans make mistakes. But there is no room or allowance in the fevered world of conspiracy theorists for mistakes, human errors, anomalies, or plain incompetence, though the latter, from the highest levels on down, is endemic in our society.
Every single piece of evidence that isn't 100 percent consistent with all the other evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt and the absence of a conspiracy is by itself proof of Oswald's innocence and the existence of a conspiracy. There is also no such thing for these people as a coincidence.
I want to assure the readers of this book that I commenced my investigation of this case with an open mind. But after being exposed to the evidence, I have become satisfied beyond all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, and beyond all reasonable doubt that he acted alone.
I am very confident that the overwhelming majority of objective readers of this book will end up feeling the same way. As one gets further into this book and starts to learn more about Oswald, it will become increasingly obvious that if any group such as the CIA or organized crime had wanted to kill the president, the unreliable and unpredictable loner and loser Lee Harvey Oswald would have been the last man on earth whom it would have entrusted with such a monumental undertaking." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; JANUARY 2007
============================
A BRIEF EXCERPT FROM THE CHAPTER ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION TO CONSPIRACY":
"One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to their logical conclusion. If they did, they'd see the reductio ad absurdum of their position.
But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of asking, "Where does this go?"-that is, where does the discrepancy, contradiction, or whatever, lead them?-they immediately give their minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent).
The discrepancy or contradiction is the entire story. And being the entire story, it by itself discredits the entire twenty-six volumes of the Warren Commission. Nothing else has to be shown or even argued." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
"This extraordinary and historic book required twenty years to research and write. The oft-challenged findings of the Warren Commission--Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed, President John F. Kennedy--are here confirmed beyond all doubt.
But 'Reclaiming History' does much more than that. In addition to providing a powerful and unprecedented narrative of events and a biography of the assassin, it confronts and destroys every one of the conspiracy theories that have grown up since the assassination, exposing their selective use of evidence, flawed logic, and outright deceptions.
So thoroughly documented, so compellingly lucid in its conclusions, 'Reclaiming History' is, in a sense, the investigation that completes the work of the Warren Commission. In it, Vincent Bugliosi, the nation's foremost prosecutor, takes on the most important murder case in American history."
Let me assure YOU and daBugliosi -- I could careless what newness (if poossible) Bugliosi found in the WCR. Rendering the WCR useless years ago makes his, Posner and the rest of the LN efforts-influence a waste of time.
Only Nutter fools think you can claim/reclaim history based on theory/ scenario[s], avoid: eyewitness testimony; outright lies; sins of omission, commission; conflicting evidence... then shit over the 'more than LHO was involved' transom, claim *best* evidence, then paddle away. Not gonna happen David.....
History is written by *victors* (WCR). Fortunately, for this generation, no one believes it. Currently that's Bugliosi and YOU. That PR war was LOST years ago. Bugliosi lost the LHO did it war when Harvey and Lee was released. Bugliosis' been staggering ever since. Not to mention, looking for divine intervention... If he wantsed to make his current soon to be released issue worthwhile to a audience that cares, he (Bugliosi) should dismantle *Harvey & Lee* -- THEN put LHO on stage, unencumbered...
You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do:
a. the BOOK tour b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the Lone Nutter crowd).... end of story!
question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?
On May 5, 7:07 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Lots of interesting data and "RH" book excerpts can be found at the > above links, including the complete lengthy "Introduction" to the > book, which almost seems like a whole book unto itself....and it > provides many excellent and astute VB passages (naturally).
> HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS THAT I'VE CULLED FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO > "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (and God help all CTers of the world...because > they'll need His devine intervention to escape "Reclaiming History" > unscathed):
> [V. BUGLIOSI ON...]
> "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively > savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much > more difficult time with me.
> As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime > books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master > and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others.
> The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on > the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, > and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to > demonstrate their invalidity.
> I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally > millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly > references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are > supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never > came across.
> Some may say it is petty, perhaps even improper, to criticize others > in writing a book about the case. I don't agree. The Kennedy > assassination is a historical event. And when anyone purporting to > write the history of the event fabricates, distorts, or misleads about > the facts of the case, it is not only advisable but incumbent upon > those who subsequently write about the event to point out these lies > and distortions. If they do not, the lies themselves will harden in > the future into "facts" and millions will be misled.
> This is precisely what has already happened in this case. After all, > if future writers don't correct the errors and distortions of their > predecessors, then who will? If they don't have the responsibility to > do this, then who does?
> Therefore, if those who follow me find that in writing this book I > myself have taken liberties with the truth, I would expect them to > bring this to the attention of their readers.
> Re-interpretation of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination will be > a never-ending process, and interpretation and analysis are the very > heart of this book.
> The supreme irony about the Kennedy assassination is that although > belief in a conspiracy knows no ideological or political boundaries, > most conspiracy theorists I have met look up to Kennedy and his > legacy, and many revere him. How very odd, then, that so many of them > have virtually dedicated their lives to exonerating the man who killed > their hero.
> To counter the incontrovertible evidence pointing to the guilt of the > person who cold-bloodedly murdered Kennedy, they come up with > extraordinary and often ludicrous arguments. They defend Oswald with a > protective passion normally reserved only for one's immediate family.
> Indeed, in their mind, everyone (any person or group will do, for > them) other than Oswald is responsible for Kennedy's death. Obviously, > the primary motivation of the conspiracy theorists is not to defend > Oswald but to attack the Warren Commission, but in the process they go > completely overboard in defending Lee Harvey Oswald the person.
> But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren Commission's > findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year > effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to > produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a > different conclusion.
> Always believing there was a massive federal effort to > "whitewash" (the title of {Harold Weisberg's} first book on the > assassination in 1965) the facts of Kennedy's murder for the American > public, and to prevent researchers like himself from finding out what > really happened, Weisberg writes on the last page (page 404) of his > third book on the assassination ("Oswald in New Orleans") that for the > first time he saw "the shadow of a happy ending".
> Till the end, he still believed that there was a conspiracy in the > assassination, but candidly acknowledged to me in 1999, after devoting > much of his life to the case, that "much as it looks like Oswald was > some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence > to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from > being an agent".
> The vast conspiracy community, which disbelieves everything in the > Warren Report except the page numbers, should (but won't) be > influenced in their thinking by such a dramatic admission from their > most esteemed titan, one who relentlessly, obsessively and, as opposed > to most of his peers, honestly put every aspect of the case under a > microscope for almost four decades.
> The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, > misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of > solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a > provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on > the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of > proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of > conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once > observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all > that is explained.
> All humans make mistakes. But there is no room or allowance in the > fevered world of conspiracy theorists for mistakes, human errors, > anomalies, or plain incompetence, though the latter, from the highest > levels on down, is endemic in our society.
> Every single piece of evidence that isn't 100 percent consistent with > all the other evidence pointing toward Oswald's guilt and the absence > of a conspiracy is by itself proof of Oswald's innocence and the > existence of a conspiracy. There is also no such thing for these > people as a coincidence.
> I want to assure the readers of this book that I commenced my > investigation of this case with an open mind. But after being exposed > to the evidence, I have become satisfied beyond all doubt that Lee > Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, and beyond all reasonable > doubt that he acted alone.
> I am very confident that the overwhelming majority of objective > readers of this book will end up feeling the same way. As one gets > further into this book and starts to learn more about Oswald, it will > become increasingly obvious that if any group such as the CIA or > organized crime had wanted to kill the president, the unreliable and > unpredictable loner and loser Lee Harvey Oswald would have been the > last man on earth whom it would have entrusted with such a monumental > undertaking." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; JANUARY 2007
> ============================
> A BRIEF EXCERPT FROM THE CHAPTER ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION TO > CONSPIRACY":
> "One of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the > theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions, which are > based on some discrepancy, anomaly, or contradiction they find, to > their logical conclusion. If they did, they'd see the reductio ad > absurdum of their position.
> But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's enough. Instead of > asking, "Where does this go?"-that is, where does the discrepancy, > contradiction, or whatever, lead them?-they immediately give their > minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of a > conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent).
> The discrepancy or contradiction is the entire story. And being the > entire story, it by itself discredits the entire twenty-six volumes of > the Warren Commission. Nothing else has to be shown or even argued." > -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI
Stupidest title ever for a book- ya gonna reclaim history by regurgitating the biggest lies of the second half of the 20th century? Everywhere you turn- everywhere you look are major things we've never heard before or since in a murder investigation...that's not incompetence...it's called conspiracy and criminal negligence...
"With a few notable exceptions, when the vast majority of these conspiracy authors are confronted with evidence that is incompatible with their fanciful theories, to one degree or another their modus operandi is to do one of two things--twist, warp, and distort the evidence, or simply ignore it--both of which are designed to deceive their readers. Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB
=============
"99% of the conspiracy community are not, of course, writers and authors. These conspiracy "buffs" (as they are frequently called) are obsessed with the assassination, have formed networks among their peers, and actually attend conspiracy-oriented conventions around the country.
"Though most of them are as kooky as a three-dollar bill in their beliefs and paranoia about the assassination, it is my sense that their motivations are patriotic and that they are sincere in their misguided and uninformed conclusions. I cannot say that about the conspiracy authors.
"Unlike the buffs--virtually none of whom have a copy of the forty official volumes on the case--the authors possess and work with these volumes. Yet the majority of them knowingly mislead their readers by lies, omissions, and deliberately distorting the official record. I realize this is an astonishing charge I am making. Unfortunately, it happens to be the truth." -- VB
=============
"If we're to believe {pro-conspiracy author Carl} Oglesby, our current federal government (as well as all previous ones since 1963) is engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the truth in the assassination.
"Apparently, then, such distinguished Americans as Chief Justice Earl Warren {and} the {other} members of the Warren Commission, as well as the Commission's general counsel, J. Lee Rankin, and 14 prominent members of the American Bar (assistant counsels to the Commission), people of impeccable honor and reputation, got together in some smoky backroom and ALL of them agreed, for some ungodly reason, to do the most dishonorable deed imaginable--give organized crime, the CIA, the military-industrial complex, or whoever was behind the assassination, a free pass in the murder of the president of the United States." -- VB
=============
"When one removes the Dictabelt "fourth shot" from the HSCA findings, all that is really left is the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy, and the fact that the committee found no evidence of any person or group having conspired with Oswald, the identical findings of the Warren Commission." -- VB
=============
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core-Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone-into its present form of the most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- VB
=============
"And, of course, we know that humans, for whatever reason, love mysteries (which, to most, the JFK assassination has become), whether fictional or real, more than they do open-and-shut cases. For example, who killed JR?" -- VB
DVP: Oops. It seems that perhaps Vince isn't an avid fan of the TV series Dallas. He thinks "J.R." was "killed" by Kristin's bullets in March 1980.
Vince should have said "Who shot JR?" above...not "killed". But if that's the biggest mistake I find in "Reclaiming History", I'll be quite satisfied with the book's overall accuracy. ;)
=============
"Therefore, because of the alignment of Connally's body vis-à-vis Kennedy's, it was virtually inevitable that a bullet traveling on a downward trajectory and passing on a straight line through soft tissue in Kennedy's body (as both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded) would go on to strike Connally where it did. But again, how would average lay readers know that {author Robert} Groden had deliberately altered reality to mislead them? (Groden declined a request by the defense to testify at the trial in London and thus avoided being cross- examined.)" -- VB
DVP: Boy, how I would have loved to see VB cross-examine Mr. Groden. That would have been sweet. Perhaps we would have heard this kind of exchange:
VB: "Mr. Groden, is it true that you ACTUALLY advocate the notion that up to TEN shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd...and that it's your belief that it's very likely that NONE of those shots -- ZERO -- came from the ONLY known, verifiable source of gunfire that day...i.e., the Sniper's Nest window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building?"
GRODEN: "Well, uh, er, yes....that's what my own analysis has suggested to me."
VB: "No further questions." (Vince then mumbles under his breath, so the jury can't hear: "Jesus, Joseph, and Mary...what a freakin' kook.") ;)
=============
"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting theories." -- VB
=============
"Even if the evidence up to January 11, 1964, the date of the subject memorandum, had not pointed only to Oswald, and even if there was no reference to a possible conspiracy in the tentative outline, the best way to judge the work of the Warren Commission on this point is not by what the Commission wrote or said, but by what it did. (One of my favorite sayings is "Your conduct speaks so loudly I can't hear a word you are saying.") And we will see that the Commission's conduct throughout the investigation clearly shows that its members only had one objective, to discover the truth of what happened." --VB
=============
"The Warren Commission critics who do not believe that the Commission covered up the assassination allege instead that the Commission conducted a very superficial, incompetent investigation of the assassination.
"But in my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew".
"Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of.
"It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- VB
=============
"The Commission's conclusions have held up remarkably well against all assaults on their validity. This is true not only of its basic conclusions, but also of its finer points. For example, with all the technological advances in photographic enhancement to which the Zapruder film of the assassination has been exposed, the very latest interpretation by most of the experts on precisely when the first of two shots hit the president--somewhere between frames 210 and 225-- just happens to coincide with what the Warren Commission concluded way back in 1964." -- VB
=============
"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion.
"But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the official version is wrong." -- VB
=============
"With both feet planted firmly in the air, the conspiracy theorists have created a cottage industry that thrives to this very day, and whose hallmark, with noted exceptions, has been absurdity and silliness.
"Despite the absurdity of their allegations and the total lack of evidence to support their charges, the conspiracy theorists have not only convinced the vast majority of Americans that the Warren Commission was wrong, but have succeeded in convincing virtually all Americans that there will never be a satisfactory resolution of this case." -- VB
At another (less asylum-like) Internet locality, it seems that a certain Mr. Healy took too many red pills (or maybe they were orange) and wrote a whole gob of incoherent gibberish (at the link below).....
DVP's response to Mr. Healy's drug-induced tirade:
Good gosh, Dave H.; what a lovely batch of random, babbling, all-over- the-place gibberish. Nice job at doing your Joe Pesci/Dave Ferrie imitation. All that's missing are the wild eyebrows and wig.
As for Mr. Bugliosi's comment about CTers leaping "from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions", he was stating a GENERALITY there (obviously). And a very, very true one too.
I can think of many examples right off the top of my head to prove the accuracy of VB's quote:
1.) Some guy is opening an umbrella! That must = A poisoned dart is fired into JFK's neck! It's OBVIOUS!
2.) Dr. Perry said the bullet hole in JFK's throat could have been "either" an entry or an exit hole (per his WC testimony). That MUST = He thinks positively it was an ENTRY wound. (Probably an entry for Umbrella Man's dart. It's OBVIOUS!)
3.) Sunlight, glare, photo grain/noise, and a probable Coca-Cola bottle on the retaining wall = "Badge Man" firing the fatal head shot into JFK's brain! Ray Charles could see this is true!
4.) Sunlight and glare coming off of Roy Kellerman's head = BILL GREER SHOT JFK! You've gotta be BLIND not to see this!
5.) A whopping FIVE total witnesses (out of more than 100 via a well- known survey/poll) heard shots from MULTIPLE directions in Dealey Plaza, and less than 9% of the witnesses heard more than 3 shots = A 10-Shot, 4-Shooter assassination plot (per one of Robert J. Groden's ludicrous theories)! It's just lucky for the Patsy Framers than 7 of the shots were totally inaudible to 91%+ of the earwitnesses. The assassins' luck never ran dry. Never.
6.) Howard Brennan said the 6th-Floor assassin was 5'10" tall and 165-175 pounds = There's no WAY that Brennan could have seen Oswald! Never mind the fact that the overall general description given by Brennan is a decent fit for "Resident Patsy For All Nov. 22 Murders In Dallas" -- i.e., Mr. Oswald. And never mind the fact that Brennan said the gunman was "slender", which LHO was. Let's give Oswald a free Presidential murder card...on the house. What do ya say?
7.) Helen Markham said the Tippit murder took place at around 1:06 or 1:07 PM = Oswald's innocent! No doubt about it! Never mind that silly "bullet shells" stuff. And never mind that idiotic stuff re. approx. 10 witnesses positively IDing Resident Patsy Oswald for this murder too. That approximated time of Markham's TRUMPS ALL HARDER EVIDENCE! It's got to! Otherwise we kooks of CT-ville can't pretend that Oz was innocent of this killing too.
8.) Michael Paine was connected with "Bell Helicopter" = Paine MUST have been a conspirator in a plot to murder President Kennedy! It couldn't BE more obvious!
I'll write out Examples 9 through 984 another time. Or, maybe another interested forum poster would like to add a few. It's not hard. Just pick up any conspiracy-flavored kookbook. There are dozens of "Leaping from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions" examples in each one of those. (Esp. if it says "Written by Jim Garrison" on the cover.)
> At another (less asylum-like) Internet locality, it seems that a > certain Mr. Healy took too many red pills (or maybe they were orange) > and wrote a whole gob of incoherent gibberish (at the link below).....
> DVP's response to Mr. Healy's drug-induced tirade:
> Good gosh, Dave H.; what a lovely batch of random, babbling, all-over- > the-place gibberish. Nice job at doing your Joe Pesci/Dave Ferrie > imitation. All that's missing are the wild eyebrows and wig.
> As for Mr. Bugliosi's comment about CTers leaping "from the most > minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions", he was > stating a GENERALITY there (obviously). And a very, very true one too.
> I can think of many examples right off the top of my head to prove the > accuracy of VB's quote:
> 1.) Some guy is opening an umbrella! That must = A poisoned dart is > fired into JFK's neck! It's OBVIOUS!
> 2.) Dr. Perry said the bullet hole in JFK's throat could have been > "either" an entry or an exit hole (per his WC testimony). That MUST = > He thinks positively it was an ENTRY wound. (Probably an entry for > Umbrella Man's dart. It's OBVIOUS!)
> 3.) Sunlight, glare, photo grain/noise, and a probable Coca-Cola > bottle on the retaining wall = "Badge Man" firing the fatal head shot > into JFK's brain! Ray Charles could see this is true!
> 4.) Sunlight and glare coming off of Roy Kellerman's head = BILL GREER > SHOT JFK! You've gotta be BLIND not to see this!
> 5.) A whopping FIVE total witnesses (out of more than 100 via a well- > known survey/poll) heard shots from MULTIPLE directions in Dealey > Plaza, and less than 9% of the witnesses heard more than 3 shots = A > 10-Shot, 4-Shooter assassination plot (per one of Robert J. Groden's > ludicrous theories)! It's just lucky for the Patsy Framers than 7 of > the shots were totally inaudible to 91%+ of the earwitnesses. The > assassins' luck never ran dry. Never.
> 6.) Howard Brennan said the 6th-Floor assassin was 5'10" tall and > 165-175 pounds = There's no WAY that Brennan could have seen Oswald! > Never mind the fact that the overall general description given by > Brennan is a decent fit for "Resident Patsy For All Nov. 22 Murders In > Dallas" -- i.e., Mr. Oswald. And never mind the fact that Brennan said > the gunman was "slender", which LHO was. Let's give Oswald a free > Presidential murder card...on the house. What do ya say?
> 7.) Helen Markham said the Tippit murder took place at around 1:06 or > 1:07 PM = Oswald's innocent! No doubt about it! Never mind that silly > "bullet shells" stuff. And never mind that idiotic stuff re. approx. > 10 witnesses positively IDing Resident Patsy Oswald for this murder > too. That approximated time of Markham's TRUMPS ALL HARDER EVIDENCE! > It's got to! Otherwise we kooks of CT-ville can't pretend that Oz was > innocent of this killing too.
> 8.) Michael Paine was connected with "Bell Helicopter" = Paine MUST > have been a conspirator in a plot to murder President Kennedy! It > couldn't BE more obvious!
> I'll write out Examples 9 through 984 another time. Or, maybe another > interested forum poster would like to add a few. It's not hard. Just > pick up any conspiracy-flavored kookbook. There are dozens of "Leaping > from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions" > examples in each one of those. (Esp. if it says "Written by Jim > Garrison" on the cover.)
why waste bandwidth David -- it's all on Amazon, right there in black and white..... get that ego under control...
Question Man Healy?: "You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do: a. the BOOK tour b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the Lone Nutter crowd).... end of story! question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?" Q MAN OFF
Healy? I see "JFK Curator" in your future..
DVP look at the bright side.. We need "squeak-toy" posters like Q MAN Healy to set up some questions.. Try to keep your dialog with the Q MAN down to 2 syllable words for maximum communication when he's loaded or forgets to take his freak-out pills..
MR ;~D
On May 6, 3:34 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> At another (less asylum-like) Internet locality, it seems that a > certain Mr. Healy took too many red pills (or maybe they were orange) > and wrote a whole gob of incoherent gibberish (at the link below).....
> DVP's response to Mr. Healy's drug-induced tirade:
> Good gosh, Dave H.; what a lovely batch of random, babbling, all-over- > the-place gibberish. Nice job at doing your Joe Pesci/Dave Ferrie > imitation. All that's missing are the wild eyebrows and wig.
> As for Mr. Bugliosi's comment about CTers leaping "from the most > minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions", he was > stating a GENERALITY there (obviously). And a very, very true one too.
> I can think of many examples right off the top of my head to prove the > accuracy of VB's quote:
> 1.) Some guy is opening an umbrella! That must = A poisoned dart is > fired into JFK's neck! It's OBVIOUS!
> 2.) Dr. Perry said the bullet hole in JFK's throat could have been > "either" an entry or an exit hole (per his WC testimony). That MUST = > He thinks positively it was an ENTRY wound. (Probably an entry for > Umbrella Man's dart. It's OBVIOUS!)
> 3.) Sunlight, glare, photo grain/noise, and a probable Coca-Cola > bottle on the retaining wall = "Badge Man" firing the fatal head shot > into JFK's brain! Ray Charles could see this is true!
> 4.) Sunlight and glare coming off of Roy Kellerman's head = BILL GREER > SHOT JFK! You've gotta be BLIND not to see this!
> 5.) A whopping FIVE total witnesses (out of more than 100 via a well- > known survey/poll) heard shots from MULTIPLE directions in Dealey > Plaza, and less than 9% of the witnesses heard more than 3 shots = A > 10-Shot, 4-Shooter assassination plot (per one of Robert J. Groden's > ludicrous theories)! It's just lucky for the Patsy Framers than 7 of > the shots were totally inaudible to 91%+ of the earwitnesses. The > assassins' luck never ran dry. Never.
> 6.) Howard Brennan said the 6th-Floor assassin was 5'10" tall and > 165-175 pounds = There's no WAY that Brennan could have seen Oswald! > Never mind the fact that the overall general description given by > Brennan is a decent fit for "Resident Patsy For All Nov. 22 Murders In > Dallas" -- i.e., Mr. Oswald. And never mind the fact that Brennan said > the gunman was "slender", which LHO was. Let's give Oswald a free > Presidential murder card...on the house. What do ya say?
> 7.) Helen Markham said the Tippit murder took place at around 1:06 or > 1:07 PM = Oswald's innocent! No doubt about it! Never mind that silly > "bullet shells" stuff. And never mind that idiotic stuff re. approx. > 10 witnesses positively IDing Resident Patsy Oswald for this murder > too. That approximated time of Markham's TRUMPS ALL HARDER EVIDENCE! > It's got to! Otherwise we kooks of CT-ville can't pretend that Oz was > innocent of this killing too.
> 8.) Michael Paine was connected with "Bell Helicopter" = Paine MUST > have been a conspirator in a plot to murder President Kennedy! It > couldn't BE more obvious!
> I'll write out Examples 9 through 984 another time. Or, maybe another > interested forum poster would like to add a few. It's not hard. Just > pick up any conspiracy-flavored kookbook. There are dozens of "Leaping > from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions" > examples in each one of those. (Esp. if it says "Written by Jim > Garrison" on the cover.)
>>> "Oswald's own mother said he pulled the trigger." <<<
That must have been shortly after she made this tearful (and hilarious) cemetery statement in front of the whirring cameras....
"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his country than any other living human being." -- Marguerite Oswald
Strange statement coming from a woman who also said her son was a murderer. I guess killing two men in one day was just Lee's way of doing "more for his country".
Snap your fingers...and it's done. Right? Simple as A-B-C.
In four overly-simplistic and impossible-to-support words -- "THEY MERELY FRAMED HIM" -- Tony M. is proving many of Mr. Bugliosi's points in grand CTer fashion. Nicely done, Anthony. And all in just four words too.
"A substantial majority of the conspiracy community is also extremely gullible, believing every story they hear without bothering to check it to see if it is accurate or makes any sense. As long as the story helps their theory, they buy it. They would improve the quality of their research appreciably by simply embracing rule number one of the journalistic profession: "If your mama says she loves you, check it out"." -- Vince B.; Page 978; "Reclaiming History"
"It couldn't have been more obvious within hours after the assassination that Oswald had murdered Kennedy, and within no more than a day or so thereafter that he had acted alone. And this is precisely the conclusion that virtually all local (Dallas), state (Texas), and federal (FBI and Secret Service) law enforcement agencies came to shortly after the assassination. Nothing has ever changed their conclusion or proved it wrong." -- VB; Page 984; "RH"
> Question Man Healy?: > "You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do: > a. the BOOK tour > b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the > Lone > Nutter crowd).... end of story! > question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?" > Q MAN OFF
> Healy? I see "JFK Curator" in your future..
> DVP look at the bright side.. We need "squeak-toy" > posters like Q MAN Healy to set up some questions.. > Try to keep your dialog with the Q MAN down to 2 > syllable words for maximum communication when he's > loaded or forgets to take his freak-out pills..
think Bronze Star Medals, Fast Eddie. You have four (4) of them, right?
> > Question Man Healy?: > > "You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do: > > a. the BOOK tour > > b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the > > Lone > > Nutter crowd).... end of story! > > question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?" > > Q MAN OFF
> > Healy? I see "JFK Curator" in your future..
> > DVP look at the bright side.. We need "squeak-toy" > > posters like Q MAN Healy to set up some questions.. > > Try to keep your dialog with the Q MAN down to 2 > > syllable words for maximum communication when he's > > loaded or forgets to take his freak-out pills..
> think Bronze Star Medals, Fast Eddie. You have four (4) of them, > right?
>Let me assure YOU and daBugliosi -- I could careless what newness (if >poossible) Bugliosi found in the WCR. Rendering the WCR useless years >ago makes his, Posner and the rest of the LN efforts-influence a waste >of time.
>Only Nutter fools think you can claim/reclaim history based on theory/ >scenario[s], avoid: eyewitness testimony; outright lies; sins of >omission, commission; conflicting evidence... then shit over the 'more >than LHO was involved' transom, claim *best* evidence, then paddle >away. Not gonna happen David.....
>History is written by *victors* (WCR). Fortunately, for this >generation, no one believes it. Currently that's Bugliosi and YOU. >That PR war was LOST years ago. Bugliosi lost the LHO did it war when >Harvey and Lee was released. Bugliosis' been staggering ever since. >Not to mention, looking for divine intervention... If he wantsed to >make his current soon to be released issue worthwhile to a audience >that cares, he (Bugliosi) should dismantle *Harvey & Lee* -- THEN put >LHO on stage, unencumbered...
>You're backing another loser, David --- here's what he's gonna do:
>a. the BOOK tour >b. move to Malibu (he's through with JFK, YOU and the rest of the Lone >Nutter crowd).... end of story!
>question: did Vince Bugliosi serve in the military?
>On May 5, 7:07 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote: >> The official website for Vincent Bugliosi's "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE >> ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" is now functioning....
>> Lots of interesting data and "RH" book excerpts can be found at the >> above links, including the complete lengthy "Introduction" to the >> book, which almost seems like a whole book unto itself....and it >> provides many excellent and astute VB passages (naturally).
>> HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS THAT I'VE CULLED FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO >> "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (and God help all CTers of the world...because >> they'll need His devine intervention to escape "Reclaiming History" >> unscathed):
>> [V. BUGLIOSI ON...]
>> "I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively >> savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much >> more difficult time with me.
I rather doubt it. Posner couldn't avoid misrepresentations, omission, and outright lies - Bugliosi will be far easier.
>> As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime >> books, credibility has always meant everything to me.
This is why you argued a conspiracy in the RFK case, and are now arguing *non* conspiracy in the JFK case, right?
>> My only master >> and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others.
If such were true, you couldn't have written a pro-WCR book.
>> The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on >> the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, >> and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to >> demonstrate their invalidity.
I suspect that this will be a featured *lie* when the book comes out. Will VB handle the 6.5mm virtually round object? The First Frame Flash problem of Z-132/133? The incredibly one-sided way that the WC questioned eyewitnesses?
>> I will not knowingly omit or distort anything. However, with literally >> millions of pages of documents on this case, there are undoubtedly >> references in some of them that conspiracy theorists feel are >> supportive of a particular point of theirs, but that I simply never >> came across.
How silly... a few weeks of browsing this forum and archives would turn up *EVERY* issue you will undoubtably omit from your book.
>> Some may say it is petty, perhaps even improper, to criticize others >> in writing a book about the case. I don't agree. The Kennedy >> assassination is a historical event. And when anyone purporting to >> write the history of the event fabricates, distorts, or misleads about >> the facts of the case, it is not only advisable but incumbent upon >> those who subsequently write about the event to point out these lies >> and distortions.
I agree. Unfortunately for Bugliosi - *he* will be the target.
And the only person who will undoubtably defend him on *this* newsforum is a troll.
>> If they do not, the lies themselves will harden in >> the future into "facts" and millions will be misled.
I don't think Bugliosi's tome will "harden" in the future ... no more than Posner's was able to.
>> This is precisely what has already happened in this case. After all, >> if future writers don't correct the errors and distortions of their >> predecessors, then who will? If they don't have the responsibility to >> do this, then who does?
Tis unfortunate that Bugliosi himself will be the victim of his own campaign of honesty and critical review.
>> Therefore, if those who follow me find that in writing this book I >> myself have taken liberties with the truth, I would expect them to >> bring this to the attention of their readers.
You needn't worry... we certainly shall.
>> Re-interpretation of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination will be >> a never-ending process, and interpretation and analysis are the very >> heart of this book.
That's *expected*. LNT'er books are *ALWAYS* "interpretation and analysis". Facts and evidence don't fit the bill very well...
>> The supreme irony about the Kennedy assassination is that although >> belief in a conspiracy knows no ideological or political boundaries,
Good to see that Bugliosi knows the poll results.
>> most conspiracy theorists I have met look up to Kennedy and his >> legacy, and many revere him.
Never voted for him, and wouldn't do so today.
>> How very odd, then, that so many of them >> have virtually dedicated their lives to exonerating the man who killed >> their hero.
I don't... the *evidence* does. I could care less about Oswald... I probably think even less of Oswald than I do of Kennedy. Oswald's sole redeeming feature is that he was a Marine.
>> To counter the incontrovertible
If it *were* incontrovertible - there'd be no place for your book, would there?
>> evidence pointing to the guilt of the >> person who cold-bloodedly murdered Kennedy, they come up with >> extraordinary and often ludicrous arguments.
Simple things, like the impossible timing, the lack of NAA results on his cheek caste, the way the WC simply lied about these sort of things...
>> They defend Oswald with a >> protective passion normally reserved only for one's immediate family.
Oswald could be guilty as sin, and it wouldn't bother me at all.
The evidence, unfortunately, doesn't support such a scenario.
>> Indeed, in their mind, everyone (any person or group will do, for >> them) other than Oswald is responsible for Kennedy's death.
That *is* what the evidence shows. Tis quite likely that some of the same people were involved as were in the conspiracy to assassinate RFK - which you were kind enough to prove happened.
>> Obviously, >> the primary motivation of the conspiracy theorists is not to defend >> Oswald but to attack the Warren Commission,
Who cares about the Warren Commission? They were just a bunch of lawyers... hmmmm... come to think of it, so are you.
>> but in the process they go >> completely overboard in defending Lee Harvey Oswald the person.
LHO never received the *ordinary* process of law that a street bum would get - and it was due to the *LAWYERS* involved. You have much to answer for.
>> But the very best testament to the validity of the Warren Commission's >> findings is that after an unrelenting, close to forty-five-year >> effort, the Commission's fiercest critics have not been able to >> produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a >> different conclusion.
How silly! This is simply a lie. Or else, Bugliosi is hiding behind the word "credible" - as if no one *else* has found the new evidence credible. Guess what, Bugliosi? Only you and a handful of trolls thinks that the new evidence released by the ARRB doesn't *drown* the WCR. (and the HSCA, for that matter)
>> Always believing there was a massive federal effort to >> "whitewash" (the title of {Harold Weisberg's} first book on the >> assassination in 1965) the facts of Kennedy's murder for the American >> public,
Provably so.
>> and to prevent researchers like himself from finding out what >> really happened,
Surely you know of all the time Weisberg spent in court to get documents that had *NOTHING* to do with National Defense or State Secrets, right?
Yet you have the gall to suggest that the federal government *DID NOT* attempt to circumvent the efforts of researchers.
That - I'll assign as an outright lie on your part, Bugliosi. You surely know better.
>> Weisberg writes on the last page (page 404) of his >> third book on the assassination ("Oswald in New Orleans") that for the >> first time he saw "the shadow of a happy ending".
>> Till the end, he still believed that there was a conspiracy in the >> assassination, but candidly acknowledged to me in 1999, after devoting >> much of his life to the case, that "much as it looks like Oswald was >> some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence >> to support it, and he never had an extra penny, so he had no loot from >> being an agent".
Fortunately, someone in a better position to know has stated otherwise.
As I've posted before: Former Senator Schweiker, who served for eighteen months on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and who chaired, along with Gary Hart, the Church Committee's subcomittee that looked into the JFK assassination (The first gave the Senator background information
Judging from the many excerpts we've seen here from Bugliosi's writings on the subject, his book will be painfully long on opinion and rhetoric, but very short on actual evidence and eyewitness testimony. He could not possibly make the definitive LN statements he's made without giving short shrift to evidence and testimony. The media will eat it up, but then they are easily bamboozled, aren't they?----Old Laz
In article <11902-463EB24C-...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net>, lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>Judging from the many excerpts we've seen here from Bugliosi's writings >on the subject, his book will be painfully long on opinion and rhetoric, >but very short on actual evidence and eyewitness testimony. He could not >possibly make the definitive LN statements he's made without giving >short shrift to evidence and testimony. The media will eat it up, but >then they are easily bamboozled, aren't they?----Old Laz
Nah, not really. The close ties between journalists and U.S. intelligence have long been known.
>>> "I do hope Bugliosi will get down to specifics...rather than these generalities." <<<
No. No. Vince is going to waste the remaining 1,590+ pages on more "Introductions", exactly like the first 36 pages you just read (and misunderstood and mangled, as per the kook norm), Ben.
Surely, DVP, that out of 1600 pages you can offer us at least one specific conspiracy point which Bugliosi has successfully refuted? For instance, the forty BOH wound witnesses, how does he counteract this evidence/testimony, without resorting to the standard LN line that they were all mistaken or lying?--- Old Laz questions the Bug's infalliblity.
In article <21667-463FD70D...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net>, lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>Surely, DVP, that out of 1600 pages you can offer us at least one >specific conspiracy point which Bugliosi has successfully refuted? For >instance, the forty BOH wound witnesses, how does he counteract this >evidence/testimony, without resorting to the standard LN line that they >were all mistaken or lying?--- >Old Laz questions the Bug's infalliblity.
Sadly, I think that DVP, troll that he is, will be Bugliosi's *only* defender. I can't get a single LNT'er to state in advance that they'd be willing to support Bugliosi.
>>> "I can't get a single LNT'er to state in advance that they'd be willing to support Bugliosi." <<<
Why does such a thing need to be officially "stated" to ol' Ben?
We LNers are.....LNers who believe that Lee Oswald was a lone assassin.
Vince B. is an LNer who believes Lee Oswald was a lone assassin.
Mutual harmony exists ALREADY....prior to the book coming out. Is a blood oath needed or something? It's obvious without stating it that all LNers here (and most everywhere) will "support" VB and his LN beliefs.
I'm not saying I'll agree with every last one of the 1.5-million words in "Reclaiming History". I'll bet there will be a few things I disagree with him about. But they won't be bottom-line (or ultra- important) things.
And if I disagree with him on something, I WILL say so.
>>> "Actually because of technology we all now VIRTUALLY have all the volumes on the Internet." <<<
Yes, I was thinking this very same thing as well. And I knew somebody would be jumping VB's case re. this remark about nobody having the WCR volumes.
Vince SHOULD know that every single word of the WR and the 26 volumes (plus the HSCA material too) is available for free online. Or at the very LEAST, VB should have found out at some point before releasing his book that all of this material is accessible free-of-charge on the Internet. If he had found out that information, I'm doubting that Vince would have made this remark -- "Virtually none of {the buffs} have a copy of the forty official volumes".
I don't think Vince is computer savvy at all--simply due to the unbelievable fact that he wrote his entire JFK book by HAND on legal pads! Can you even IMAGINE doing that in this computer/word processor age?! That's amazing. It's actually amazingly silly, if you want my personal opinion on that particular "legal pads galore" point. It would have been infinitely easier to write the book on a computer, rather than longhand.
But, it also makes me respect the hard work and dedication that Vince Bugliosi put into his massive 21-year JFK project all the MORE...seeing as how he punished himself in a totally-unneeded and unnecessary fashion by writing out every word by hand with a #2 pencil. THAT'S dedication! ~wink~
DVP, I didn't think you could name one conspiracy point that Bugliosi has successfully refuted. If you won't and he can't, that makes you both frauds. So quit saying he will demolish all conspiracy theories. You've offered us nothing, nada, zilch, zero evidence that he can do what you claim for him. Put up or shut up. ----Old Laz challenges
>>> "DVP, I didn't think you could name one conspiracy point that Bugliosi has successfully refuted." <<<
After I finish all 2,800 total pages of VB's book, I'll have so many "refuted" theories for you, I probably will run out bandwidth posting them all. Think you can wait till then?
>>> "If you won't and he can't, that makes you both frauds." <<<
If there's one thing you can't call Vince Bugliosi, it's a "fraud". If you choose to use that word, you're either dishonest or you just flat- out don't know who you're talking about.
So, maybe you should think twice about using those types of disparaging remarks when it comes to VB. Because the more times you say shit like that, the more embarrassing it's going to be for you later on, when you have to start stuffing down that massive amount of crow. Ten-four?
>>> "So quit saying he will demolish all conspiracy theories." <<<
No, I don't think I will quit saying that. Because HE ALREADY HAS DONE IT. You just don't realize it yet.
How do I know for certain, you ask?
Simple .... It's because of WHO the author of the book is, and the mere fact his LN-favoring book is coming out AT ALL. That's how I know.
Or, to quote the author himself.....
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- Vince B.
>>> "You've offered us nothing, nada, zilch, zero evidence that he can do what you claim for him." <<<
See above VB quote. That says it all....regardless of subject matter.
>>> "Put up or shut up." <<<
Oh, come now, my good ol' Laz-man. I've refuted several conspiracy theories myself (such as the silly-as-all-get-out "Patsy" theory), via common sense ALONE, not to mention the evidence too. Right here (pert- near as many words as VB's book, it would seem). ;) .....
How does VB refute E. Howard Hunt's conspiracy confession? Hunt was not only a conspiracy theorist, but a conspirator. I bet VB won't touch "Dear Mr. Hunt" with a ten foot pole.--Old Laz predicts
Mr. Hunt nicely timed his death on Jan. 23, 2007, so that his "confession" probably won't be mentioned in VB's book at all. (Publishing deadlines, you know.)
Perhaps E. Howard will make it into Vincent's sequel in 2013 -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY AGAIN". ;)
I'm hoping that Vince WILL mention the "Hunt Confession" (as a sort of addendum) when he talks about his book on his book tour, to commence next week.
And perhaps he'll tell his thoughts about that stupid confession when he's asked point-blank about it on the TV talk shows he'll inevitably be appearing on.
PETER "I'LL BOYCOTT VB'S BOOK BUT I MIGHT STILL BUY IT IF IT'S DISCOUNTED" FOKES UTTERED:
>>> "By boycott I meant: "Not buy at full price"." <<<
DVP NOW RESPONDS:
LOL. Better choose a different word then, Peter. Because "Not buy at full price" still isn't what "boycott" means...in ANY way. LOL.
>>> "No need to fuss over the word boycott." <<<
OK. But you'd better stop using the word then...for it's apparent you can't use it properly.
>>> "This preview of the book with its nasty rhetoric directed at CTs is having an impact on potential buyers' intentions." <<<
It's having an impact on me too. A hugely FAVORABLE impact in fact. The verbal salvos he levels at CTers are the best things I've seen in print in decades! Totally deserved. And Vince obviously thinks so too.
Why are such salvos deserved you ask?
Because Vince, through his diligent research (coupled with his reputation for honesty and fact-finding) has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that ALL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS HAVE BEEN DEAD-WRONG FOR 43 YEARS.*
* = Yes, I'm saying this without scanning every page in "RH". And that's a silly thing to do, right? Right. I admit it (to a degree). But, just wait and see. And can there be any doubt of this "diligent" fact I mentioned? I mean, 40 chapters & 2800 anti-conspiracy pages PLUS VB's above-board reputation! As Vince said at the Mock Trial re. LHO's obvious guilt: "How much more do you need?!!"! ~wink~
>>> "Numerous posters on the Education Forum have stated that they will not be buying the book." <<<
Which makes it fairly clear (even before the book surfaces) that Vince certainly wasn't in this "TO MAKE A FAST BUCK" (as some CTers seem to think is the case; not necessarily here, but other places).
For, if VB was in it for the $$$, he probably wouldn't be so insulting toward CTers. He would have softened his invective to a degree to sell more copies. And Vince certainly wouldn't have waited 21 years to publish the thing if he was merely a money-grubbing author. He's an old man of 72 now. If he was only interested in a fast buck, he'd have published it in 1990.
|
