Vincent Bugliosi May 2007
lazu...@webtv.net
guy that actually loves Bugliosi more than Bugliosi, if he isn't
Bugliosi himself. They booted him off the Lancer board for his
compulsive mile long lone nut postings & he trashes ahelluva lot of JFK
Books on Amazon with one star reviews.Nothing like fairness, and an open
mind, exuding a fresh honest approach is there?
I loved Bugliosi's previous works, but there is no way I can truly
respect anyone who is not open to conspiracy that has studied the case.
David VP
I love what Mr. Bugliosi stands for, that is for sure -- i.e., the
truth and the fair, honest PROCESS that he engages in while arriving at
that "truth" (via his expertise as a former Deputy District Attorney).
That's what I "love" about him. (And his razor-sharp wit as well; plus
his keen logic, too.)
>> "They booted him {DVP} off the Lancer board for his compulsive mile-long lone-nut postings."
This is dead-wrong. I was "booted" from there (after posting regularly
for 3 years; "mile-long" posts included) ONLY after another very
well-informed "LNer" appeared on the Lancer scene...and the combination
of the two of us produced a mountain of pro-LN posts filled with hard
facts in evidence and CS&L that was just way yonder too much for the
CTers there to put up with. So, the result was that both myself and the
brand-new LNer there were dumped off. (And the new guy had been posting
there for a mere 11 days. So much for "open-minded fairness" and
wanting to hear both "sides", huh?) They're not interested in the LN
POV there whatsoever, any more than the hardline CTers want to hear
about it here.
>> "He {DVP} trashes a helluva lot of JFK books on Amazon with one-star reviews."
Correct. And it's because the material within them is nothing but pure
CT fodder for the most part, IMO. (Although I don't totally trash Mr.
Groden's books/videos/DVDs -- because even WITH the added annoyance of
constant pro-CT hogwash included, the photographs and films that have
been enhanced by Groden's work do serve a useful purpose to all LNers
and CTers alike. This is a positive aspect that I have noted re. Mr.
Groden's materials, despite his ludicrous belief in his book TKOAP that
ZERO shots {of a possible 10!} came from the Depository's Sniper's
Nest.)
Go get 'em, Vince! .... Vince will con"vince". :)
aeffects
commonly called Vinnie daBUG? What's it been 6-7 years he's been
toiling away....
That who your worshipping these day's? roflmfao!
Open minded fairness, on the internet??? ROFL What the hell, were you
born yesterday? Or live in a wet dream?
Enhanced photographs -- nice topic.....
David VP
Nope. More like 20 years. But....so what? Mr. Lifton's
piece-of-made-up-dreck that came out in 1980 took him 15 years to
"create" (from whole cloth). And that was a book that didn't tackle
1/20th of the subject matter that Vincent's "Final Verdict" will be
tackling.
Perhaps this is a good place to remind the "Oswald Is Innocent"
cheerleading squad of this blurb about Vince's book (circa 1998 when it
was originally slated for release, but was delayed by, no doubt, the
ARRB stuff)........
"His {Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
light on this peculiarly American nightmare."
>> "Open minded fairness, on the internet??? ROFL What the hell, were you
born yesterday? Or live in a wet dream?"
Neither one. I'm living in a "real" world.....the one where PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE which all points toward a single killer isn't ALL completely
tossed aside by a paranoid pro-CT mindset that normally goes like this
--- "It's Gotta Be A Conspiracy Despite ALL This Wealth Of PHYSICAL
Evidence That Says Otherwise".
That "real" world is the one Mr. Bugliosi is currently residing in too.
Maybe you oughta join us.
SecretServiceguy
I like Bugliosi, too...but I am very skeptical, to put it mildly, about
the notion that his book can "prove" LHO did it alone (succeed where
Belin, Moore, Posner, et al have failed?)
vince palamara
Sam
news:9337-43C...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
bugliosi falls under 6. below
was bugliosi rewarded for keeping charles manson alive?
9. below is why 9-11 was orchestrated from the inside
The following have been expanded and updated by Mark Johnson, (c)
1999, from the original Seven Rules of Propaganda, identified by the
Institute For Propaganda Analysis in 1937.
The Ten Commandments of Propaganda
1. divide and conquer
Possibly the oldest political tactic known to man. As long
as the people are busy fighting each other, they will never
know their real enemy. Hate speech is valuable to this end.
2. tell the people what they want
Not to be confused with telling them what they want to hear,
you are telling them what they want, and why they cannot
live without it.
3. the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it
Coined by Joseph Goebbels, this truth has been proven time
and time again, especially in times of war.
4. always appeal to the lowest common denominator
Abraham Lincoln supposedly said "you can't fool all of the
people all of the time." But, if you can fool enough of the
people, enough of the time, you can get away with anything.
The trick is to find the common hopes and fears of the
largest majority.
5. generalize as much as possible
Specifics are not very important. Most people would prefer
to think in the simplest terms possible - black and white,
good and evil, Communist and Capitalist, etc.
6. use "expert" testimonial
A degree and screen presence is pretty much all you need to
be an authority on anything in the modern world. People like
celebrities.
7. always refer to the "authority" of your office
Once your authority is established, you need to periodically
remind the people of it. It will add credibility to your purpose.
8. stack the cards with "information"
Statistics and facts work wonderfully, especially when the
average person only partially understands them, and when
conflicting data is censored.
9. a confused people are easily led
When a person hears the truth, he won't know it, because it
will be lumped together with disinformation, half-truths, and
lies.
10. get the "plain folks" onto the "bandwagon"
John Doe is your propaganda agent. Middle Americans will
"relate" to him, and so will their friends, and their friends,
and their friends, and their friends . . .
And remember, when all else fails, use FEAR.
David VP
little "#6 slot" (above) goes falling by the wayside when one realizes
that the following comment (although, yes, it was made directly by Mr.
B. himself) is 100% accurate, based on everything I've ever seen
written by VB....and gives you an idea as to the "Enormous Amount Of
Support" we can expect to find to back up Vincent's "Final
Verdict".........
"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." --
Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
curtj...@webtv.net
Sam, you shouldn't talk about Bud like that!
Kenneth A. Rahn
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136885091.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>> "David Von Pein is a guy that actually loves Bugliosi more than
>>> Bugliosi, if he isn't Bugliosi himself."
>
> I love what Mr. Bugliosi stands for, that is for sure -- i.e., the
> truth and the fair, honest PROCESS that he engages in while arriving at
> that "truth" (via his expertise as a former Deputy District Attorney).
> That's what I "love" about him. (And his razor-sharp wit as well; plus
> his keen logic, too.)
>
>
>>> "They booted him {DVP} off the Lancer board for his compulsive mile-long
>>> lone-nut postings."
>
> This is dead-wrong. I was "booted" from there (after posting regularly
> for 3 years; "mile-long" posts included) ONLY after another very
> well-informed "LNer" appeared on the Lancer scene...and the combination
> of the two of us produced a mountain of pro-LN posts filled with hard
> facts in evidence and CS&L that was just way yonder too much for the
> CTers there to put up with. So, the result was that both myself and the
> brand-new LNer there were dumped off. (And the new guy had been posting
> there for a mere 11 days. So much for "open-minded fairness" and
> wanting to hear both "sides", huh?) They're not interested in the LN
> POV there whatsoever, any more than the hardline CTers want to hear
> about it here.
Don't forget that Debra runs her conferences and her discussion board to
shore up her fellow conspiracists, not to provide balanced discussions. She
"knows" what happened and wants to comfort and encourage her fellow
conspiracists who also "know." She can get very emotional in support of this
stance.
As a result, her folks all just talk to each other, and she is very
comfortable with that. That's why I am not bothering to post there anymore.
At the same time, I like Debra very much personally, and we have always had
an affable relationship, except for about ten minutes at one of her
conferences when I told the audience that it was over and that they should
get a life. :-)
Ken Rahn
Anthony Marsh
Who was it who promised us that Final Verdict would be published by
March 2006?
aeffects
spending the golden years of your life attempting to persuade those who
disagree with you and the Lone Neuter take of things.
According to you - a situation thats already OVER? -- roflmfao
Only place left for Lone Neuter's is here -- and you ain't doing to
well, here!
Your side does provide a certain measure of entertainment. I think a
few here have enlightened many lurkers as to what's really in the WCR
and the tomes -- it's slipping away from you Lone Neuter internet guy's
-- welcome to: Real World 'U'.
tomnln
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:dq0pm...@news1.newsguy.com...
============================================================================
> As a result, her folks all just talk to each other, and she is very
> comfortable with that. That's why I am not bothering to post there
> anymore.
We MUST talk to one another Because Felon Defenders like you Refuse to
Debate us on evidence/testimony.
============================================================================
> At the same time, I like Debra very much personally, and we have always
> had an affable relationship, except for about ten minutes at one of her
> conferences when I told the audience that it was over and that they should
> get a life. :-)
>
> Ken Rahn
WHY then, are you always posting without ever discussing
evidence/testimony???
=======================================================================
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136921131.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
As a conspiracy believer, my First goal is to discuss the issue with people
who "Disagree" with me.
Those who defend Felons REFUSE to debate the issues of evidence/testimony.
The "ONLY" people who disagree with me in my Live Audio Chat Room
are the ones who use Foul Language.
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Social Issues.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
Bud
Very open minded of you.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"That Vince "I'm gonna get that damn book done SOMETIME" Bugliosi? More commonly
>>>called Vinnie daBUG? What's it been 6-7 years he's been toiling away?"
>
>Nope. More like 20 years. But....so what? Mr. Lifton's
>piece-of-made-up-dreck that came out in 1980 took him 15 years to
>"create" (from whole cloth). And that was a book that didn't tackle
>1/20th of the subject matter that Vincent's "Final Verdict" will be
>tackling.
>
>Perhaps this is a good place to remind the "Oswald Is Innocent"
>cheerleading squad of this blurb about Vince's book (circa 1998 when it
>was originally slated for release, but was delayed by, no doubt, the
>ARRB stuff)........
>
>"His {Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
>evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
>sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for,
FINALLY! I've *ALWAYS* wanted the LNT'er's explanation for why the closest
non-limo eyewitness (who even happened to be a policeman!) was never questioned
by anyone prior to the issuing of the WCR.
Or how the WC managed to publish 26 volumes of evidence, yet missed the very
first document created - the death certificate.
Or just what that 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray is.
Or how over 40+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't in the photographs...
Or how over 50+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't seen in the Z-film.
But, I won't hold my breath... LNT'ers have had over 40 years to explain these
simple things, and simply haven't.
David VP
powers of persuasion).........
"Some folks may find it ironic that I have gradually changed my view
over the years. Early on I was quite open-minded to the idea that there
was a vast conspiracy behind the JFK assassination, but I began to
realize that the authors whose books propounded the various conspiracy
views often had their own ideological axes to grind and that they were
quite selective in the facts they cited -- and sometimes conjured up
entire scenarios without any evidence at all.
"This impression was confirmed for me when I heard a speech on the JFK
assassination by Vincent Bugliosi, and the logical and persuasive way
he handled himself in the spirited question-and-answer session.
Bugliosi's talk, and the non-evasive way he answered all questions,
especially the hostile ones, impressed me very much, even though I
often disagree with Bugliosi politically. He put to rest, in my
opinion, several nagging issues which had been advanced by Mark Lane
and others on the subject. After that, Mark Lane became less and less
credible to me because of the way he twisted the facts to make them fit
his pre-conceived scenarios." -- Sam Wells
tomnln
What the heck does this have to do with Evidence/Testimony?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136952752.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
>
>Did the well run Dry?
>
>
>What the heck does this have to do with Evidence/Testimony?
Nothing, of course!
LNT'ers, and I'm quite sure that should Bugliosi put himself in that category,
he'll do the same; cannot deal with specific evidence, cites, and sources...
This is why David has refused to respond to any of the following:
**************************************
FINALLY! I've *ALWAYS* wanted the LNT'er's explanation for why the closest
non-limo eyewitness (who even happened to be a policeman!) was never questioned
by anyone prior to the issuing of the WCR.
Or how the WC managed to publish 26 volumes of evidence, yet missed the very
first document created - the death certificate.
Or just what that 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray is.
Or how over 40+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't in the photographs...
Or how over 50+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't seen in the Z-film.
But, I won't hold my breath... LNT'ers have had over 40 years to explain these
simple things, and simply haven't.
**************************************
David won't respond, perhaps hoping that his avenging hero, Bugliosi, will
somehow make it all 'go away'.
But the evidence hasn't gotten any better for the LNT'ers... indeed, as we find
out more material that was hidden and buried, we have a *stronger* case than
ever before.
Bugliosi is a fool if he thinks he can do what the Warren Commission, Clark
Panel, and HSCA failed to do... prove the LNT case. I'll be interested to see
if he's any better than Posner.
I'll predict right now that if he tries to prove a LNT'er argument, that he will
be caught in outright lies about the evidence in order to do so. Posner was, I
don't see Bugliosi doing any better.
David VP
Nothing of any specific nature (obviously). I just tossed in the Sam W.
comments as a kind of freebie....a bonus for CTers to spit and and crap
upon...as per the CT paranoid norm.
But what I'd REALLY like to see is JUST ONE SINGLE SOLITARY
pro-conspiracy buff come up with a believable, logical, and
non-laughable ALTERNATIVE to the SBT that comes even remotely close to
a realistic way the shooting of both JFK & JBC could have occurred
(i.e., considering the evidence, such as: the bullet holes in both
victims + the lack of any and all bullets save #399 + the Z-Film timing
of the event, which would have to indicate THREE separate shooters
firing at virtually the same time, given the tight Z-Film timeline).
Let's see CTers concoct a "theory" for that.
Put your CT money where your mouth is and REPLACE THE FRIGGIN' SBT WITH
SOMETHING OF A SUBSTANTIAL NATURE TO LET US ALL KNOW HOW IT *REALLY*
HAPPENED ON 11/22.
I don't know about other LNers, but I'm sick to death of hearing how
the SBT is "foolish" and "impossible" and "an LNers wet dream" and
"Specter's fairy tale pulled from his ass", et al -- when at the same
time NOT ONE CTer has placed on the table ANY kind of reasonable,
logical (and above all BELIEVABLE) alternative scenario to replace the
SBT.
Hell, I can't even get a CTer to MAKE UP A THEORY FROM WHOLE CLOTH --
let alone get them to try to come up with one to fit any of the actual
bullet holes in the two men and one to account for the lack of ALL the
"Real" bullets in the case that CTers say just "got lost" magically (or
were all eradicated by the ever-so-efficient "cover-up team" post-12:30
PM on 11/22).
Telling the world that the SBT is "wrong" without getting up off their
asses and telling us HOW IT DID HAPPEN is the worst excuse for "JFK
Research" I've yet to encounter.
Papa Andy
if someone proves conclusively that pigs don't have wings
they are not required to come up with alternate theories of
pig transportation
it's called logic
A
David VP
What about it? Are you saying JFK isn't really "dead"? Or that Admiral
Burkley, who signed the death certificate, is one of the main
"conspirators" in the case? What IS your point here? I see none. Except
the probable CT suspicion of "moving wounds" on JFK's back. But the
death certificate placement of the back wound says "back", not "neck",
which is perfectly consistent with this autopsy photograph of President
Kennedy's back wound. So, again, what's your point? ......
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE5_HI.JPG
>> "Or just what that 6.5mm virtually-round object in the AP X-ray is."
Once again -- what about it? IOW -- So what? It's a round "object" (of
some sort) on an X-ray of JFK. But WHAT EXACTLY IS IT? What PROOF is
there that this is a "bullet fragment"? Answer: None.
Furthermore -- It seems as though the CTers wish to have their cake and
eat it all up too with the "6.5mm object on the X-ray" argument.
Meaning: They (CTers) seem to think that all the X-rays and autopsy
pics are forgeries/fakes.....therefore WHY didn't these expert "photo
fakers" take care of this "object" in that X-ray too? They "faked" them
to supposedly eradicate ALL notions of frontal entry wounds and rear
exit wounds....but they just LEFT IN a mysterious blob of a
"6.5mm"-shaped object in the final "phonied" X-ray? Why?
Did they do this to further the false notion that Oswald's 6.5mm weapon
was used? Is that it? Again, though, I'd ask -- what for? There's tons
of other evidence to tell the world Oswald's weapon was THE ONLY rifle
used to kill JFK. So WHY complicate matters with this oddball "object"?
Makes no sense.
Best explanation -- The "6.5mm blob" is a ...... 6.5mm blob. It's never
been officially identified as anything, much less proven to be a
"bullet fragment". Just like the small little white anomaly/spot very
low on the back of JFK's neck seen here (which has no official
explanation either).........
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/autop04.JPEG
Once again, the CT crowd sees smoke and fire when it isn't there at
all. It's been "created" in the CT mind. Per the CT mindset, EVERY
SINGLE "unanswerable" in the case (and there are some, I don't deny
that) MUST BE ANSWERED WITH SMOOTH UNWAVERING SKILL -- or: "It Was A
Conspiracy!" (per paranoid CTers). Hogwash and horse manure.
This is exactly the same type of CT argument made re. the "small round
bullet wound of ENTRANCE in the front right temple of JFK" (which is
what CTers say they see in an autopsy photo of JFK to further the
notion of a Knoll gunman).
Naturally, this "entry hole" does not exist. Never did. The CTers PUT
it there themselves to strengthen their non-existent physical-evidence
case. And, once again, I'd ask --- What kind of miserable BOOBS were
doing the supposed "photo fakery" of the official autopsy stuff? They
"fake" all other portions of the pic to obliterate the idea of a Knoll
gunman, but they LEAVE IN evidence in the photo of a FRONTAL ENTRY
WOUND on JFK's head??? Were Gomer Pyle and his cousin Goober performing
these photo alterations? Must have been them. Because they were mighty
stupid to miss something like that bullet hole in JFK's temple.
Back to reality --- Humes, Finck, and Boswell all signed the official
autopsy report of JFK....and they all said that just two bullets hit
JFK from behind, with no bullets striking the President from the front.
Now, either ALL THREE primary autopsy doctors are/were crooked lying
assholes -- or: the President WAS shot just twice...and from only
behind him.
Plus: The autopsy doctors (in point of fact) got the ball rolling re.
the SBT too (which is something that nobody seems to realize
apparently). Arlen Specter didn't "create" the notion that just one
bullet sped through JFK's back and neck -- the DOCTORS did that in the
Official Autopsy Report. .....
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea, AND MADE ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF
THE NECK. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body." (Emphasis is my own.) -- From
JFK's Official Autopsy Report; November 1963
More of my thoughts on how the SBT got its very-acceptable start in
November 1963 .... and not strictly from Mr. Arlen Specter and the
WC........
http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/33265618
>> "Or how over 40+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't in the photographs."
>> "Or how over 50+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't seen in the Z-film."
So, right here with this absurd CTism, you're purporting that all of
the autopsy pics and X-rays are "fakes" (yet again) ... AND that the
Zapruder Film is a "fake". (I also like how these numbers seem to grow
ever higher and higher with the passage of time. Now it's "50+" and
"40+ eyewitnesses" per the CT line.)
I must add here (and I've said this on every JFK forum I've spoken on)
-- I, too, am concerned about the BOH wound witnesses. I simply cannot
explain the reason why a goodly number of people said they saw a gaping
wound at the back of JFK's head. I just do not know why.
But by the same token, the CTers are in much the same type of boat with
a bit of a leak in it -- re. the photos and X-rays and Z-Film, which
ALL do NOT show the BOH damage.
I almost consider this point a "draw". However, the evidence of the
photos and X-rays and Z-Film cannot simply be tossed aside EITHER. The
CTers have their precious BOH wound witnesses; but the other (LN) side
is equally as strong (if not stronger) with regard to other pieces of
documented-as-genuine physical evidence as well. And the pictures and
Z-Film are not lying. Saying they are all fakes is to make a whole gob
of people out to be accomplices in a massive cover-up of the murder of
a U.S. President. And WHERE is the verifiable PROOF of that rather
large and contemptible allegation? I've yet to see ANY proof from CTers
to tell the world WHO did this "photo fakery", where it was done, and
when, etc.
David VP
"Proves conclusively" being the operative (and, of course, 100% wrong)
two-word piece of CTism in this post.
No CTer, ever, has come anywhere CLOSE to "proving conclusively" that
the SBT is wrong or invalid in any way.
And that argument still would not get CTers off the hook when it comes
to explaining HOW IT DID HAPPEN. Obviously those bullet holes in the
two victims didn't just appear out of nowhere. Somebody shot those
guys. And if the SBT is "wrong", then SOMETHING ELSE is correct. What
the hell is it? Just tell the world. Why keep it to yourself, when you
(speaking of ANY conspiracy theorist here) could earn millions by
"solving" this case with your new book entitled:
"Three Shooters Did The So-Called 'SBT' Damage In Dealey Plaza --
Here's How!"*
* = We'll work on shortening that book title before it's published
however.
David VP
If you're speaking of my Forum posts specifically -- I never "promised"
a darn thing in this 03/2006 regard. I was merely reporting on
something I had heard re. "tentative" release dates (which is what that
new "Final Verdict" release date of May 2007 is too -- an estimated,
tentative date).
In my view, the longer he takes, the More "LN Sense" it shall contain
(and the MORE pure CT conjecture will be debunked in the extra time
needed to publish).
lazu...@webtv.net
conspiratorial witnesses? I don't think so.
What is he going to say about mortician Tom Robinson who performed the
Autopsy and saw with his own eyes" an orange sized hole" directly in the
middle back of JFK's head? It might be good enough for Anthony Marsh who
thinks his opiniion is more important than the guy doing the embalming
and working on the body,but I sure as hell don't think the average
person will.We know there is overwhelming corroboration of this, even
from Boswell that the back of the head did not look like the photos.
Speaking of the Autopsy and the personnel: if this is such a simple case
why does Harold Rydburg who did the drawings of the wounds for the WC
based on deliberately erroneous info provided by Humes-believe in a
conspiracy? Why does Sibert? Why does O'Conner, Why does David?Why does
Jenkins? Why did Custer? Because they were there and know from hands on
experience, what they saw up close and observed.
lazu...@webtv.net
JFK. How in the hell does this happen coincidentally? Oswald is
making$1.35 an hr in a warehouse. & JFK our President gets the worst
most dishonest botched piece of shit Autopsy ever!
Don't tell me those 3 guys were totally incompetent either, or they
wouldn'thave all made the exact same mistakes! Hell, you could take any
3 people off the street with their full faculties and know if a wound is
in the back or neck!
Even if Humes & Boswell couldn't find their asses with a compass, city
map, magnifying glass and both hands-Dr. Finck came in from the Armed
Forces Institute Of Patholgy where he had supervised tons of Autopsies.
David VP
Sure he will. And undoubtedly HAS done so. I wouldn't be the least bit
surprised if quotes from gobs of "pro-conspiracy" witnesses appear in
Vincent's book. He SHOULD, definitely, lay everything on the table,
whether it points to "Lone Nut" or "Conspiracy". And I truly think he
will do that.
Because I know for a fact that Vince Bugliosi is smart enough to know
that he cannot just simply ignore or gloss-over certain aspects of the
assassination (in the hopes that nobody'll notice such omissions).
Because the CT gang is definitely going to notice such
omissions...that's for certain.
And I'm also certain beyond doubt that Vince is not going to (as CTers
like to say) "pull a Posner", i.e., he will not leave out important
information like the various BOH wound witnesses, including mortician
Tom Robinson (whose personal observations and the "rubber pad placed at
the back of the head" matter are most certainly things that need to
addressed up front).
But there's no doubt that Vince KNOWS of Mr. Robinson's observations
and the "rubber pad" matter. And yet even WITH such witness
observations, Vince has NOT changed his stance from that of an LNer to
a CTer. Anybody wonder WHY this is? I don't. It's because he's got it
covered.....logically and forthrightly too. Somehow, he's got it
covered. And without performing a "snow job" either (because that is
not his style).
There's also the following V.B. quote, which verifies beyond ALL doubt
that Mr. B. will not be distorting or ignoring anything in this JFK
case....because who in their right mind would be caught saying ON THE
PUBLIC RECORD the following and then not follow through with it? ......
"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." --
Vince Bugliosi
lazu...@webtv.net
shine Lifton's shoes if he had 9 lives. Have you seen the top of the
head Autopsy Photos? Nobody is describing that at all at Parkland-and
I'll admit from observing you can't tell if he was shot from front or
rear, but there is no way in hell that damage is from one FMJ striking
the rear of the head near the cowlick,( notice the clean cut lines on
the left of his head) so unless the head was mutilated how do you
explain it?. O'Conner said that is the way Pres. Kennedy looked when he
took the bloody sheet off his head"was iike a bomb exploded inside his
head".
David VP
That's a hot one indeed. (Actually, you have it backwards -- Mr. Lifton
couldn't shine VB's boots on his "Best (Evidence)" day. Given Mr.
Lifton's "body-altering" craziness that has been swimming in his head
since 1966, I'm kind of doubting that Mr. Lifton could even FIND
Vincent's shoes, let alone shine them.)
BTW....You gave Oswald a dime raise in a past post. He was only making
$1.25 an hour at the TSBD, not $1.35. So that means he deserved a
dime's LESS worth of attention at his "better autopsy than JFK's".
Sure, JFK's autopsy was a freakin' madhouse. THAT'S a huge part of the
problem with it. Way too many cooks in the kitchen. The whole thing was
certainly FAR from "routine". But that madhouse atmosphere still
doesn't mean the END RESULTS were completely botched to the
absolutely-ludicrous extreme that they got it ALL WRONG.
Interesting, too, you mention Colonel Finck -- because his name, too,
is right there on that Official Autopsy Report, isn't it? So he must be
a lying bastard too, correct? He reviewed that Report AND ATTACHED HIS
JOHN HANCOCK TO IT, didn't he?
And that's the Report which says that JFK was struck by TWO and only
two projectiles from above and behind him...and it also is the very
genesis of the SBT (by saying, unambiguously as all get out, that a
bullet "made its exit" through JFK's throat).
All lies, right?
Did ANYONE tell the truth in this case as far as CTers are concerned
(besides Acquilla Clemmons, Jean Hill, Paul O'Connor, and Skinny
Holland that is)?
>> "Have you seen the top-of-the-head Autopsy Photos?"
Sure. Of course I have. Here are two of them here.......
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/jfk06.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk03clr.JPG
What is it about these pics that PROVES a BOH wound or a Knoll shooter
in your view? Given the President's supine position in the photos in
question, the ooze/brain tissue we see is falling back toward the back
(and top) of his head. But there's no discernible hole visible that, in
any way, would spell out "He Was Shot From The Front". What I see is
perfectly CONSISTENT with the Z-Film.
BTW....I'm never sure if the CTer I'm talking to is an advocate for
"All Autopsy Pics Were Faked" ... or "Just A Few Pictures Were Faked"
... or "No Autopsy Materials Were Faked".
Which category do you reside in?
David VP
And isn't it interesting, too, that even this mortician "BOH" account
is not at all "consistent" with many of the other BOH wound witnesses
who say the wound was much further to the RIGHT-REAR (and not "middle"
rear).
Based on the following montage of BOH witnesses (and I'm not going to
deny there are quite a few), it looks to me like only Dulany's
demonstration of the BOH wound he saw matches that of mortician
Robinson (per the previous "middle back" quote provided by a CTer
above). .......
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
Plus: The "Avulsion Seen In The Z-Film" brigade might wish to explain
how a supposed "avulsion" which is (supposedly) in the VERY MIDDLE of
the back of JFK's head matches the "hole" as seen by virtually any of
the above-pictured group of witnesses?
Plus: From WHERE in front of President Kennedy could such a gunshot
have emanated to have created such an "avulsion" in the VERY CENTER of
the back of JFK's cranium?
Answer (it seems to me) would have to be: The Triple Underpass bridge.
And that, as anyone can see, is just plain crazy. There was no killer
with a rifle out in plain sight of many cops and railroad workers
firing from that bridge. .......
tomnln
Maybe you would like to discuss it here?
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Social Issues.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1136961109....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Papa Andy
assassination of JFK
they are (or were) the ones with the obligation to come up with
explanations and evidence
they were also the ones with the powers of the US government at their
disposal
critics, despite your incoherent ranting, are entitled to lok at that
evidence and see how it holds up
If it holds up incredibly poorly -- as in no one has ever deomstrated
that a bullet can damage a wrist without suffering some damage itself
-- then it is reasonable to say that the case was not solved
in the 19th century Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the ether
that physicists had speculated about did not exist. It would be a
generation before Einstein was able to extrapolate a new theory that
would use this data
to sit round ane rave that Michelson and Morley had not put forth
something to replace the ether has nothing to do with science or logic
and neither does your drooling above
A
lazu...@webtv.net
head , i.e. BEHIND the ears, why isn't this hole apparent in the BOH
photos?
And if you use the excuse that the scalp had been pulled over the hole
for the photo, then isn't that "alteration" of the evidence? The photos
were supposed to represent the wounds, not disguise them, wouldn't you
agree?
One other question. Among the nearly forty witnesses to the back of the
head, can you name just one who said that JFK's head looked immaculate
as in the BOH photo? That should be easy for you. And don't cop out by
saying the invincible Vince will answer all the questions in his tome
from on high.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"The WC managed to publish 26 volumes of evidence, yet missed the very first
>>>document created - the death certificate."
>
>What about it?
This doesn't strike you as odd at all, does it?
>Are you saying JFK isn't really "dead"?
How silly. I'm pointing out a flaw in the record, one that has probably *never*
occurred in U.S. legal history.
Or can you name *ANY* other legal case where the death certificate was never
produced or recorded?
>Or that Admiral
>Burkley, who signed the death certificate, is one of the main
>"conspirators" in the case?
He was. He controlled the autopsy, and prevented the truth from coming out. In
the very *least*, he's provably right in the middle of the coverup.
>What IS your point here? I see none.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
But, it's interesting to see the *best* effort that can be made on this issue.
>Except
>the probable CT suspicion of "moving wounds" on JFK's back. But the
>death certificate placement of the back wound says "back", not "neck",
Yep. In clear disagreement with what the WC concluded.
>which is perfectly consistent with this autopsy photograph of President
>Kennedy's back wound. So, again, what's your point? ......
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE5_HI.JPG
>
>
>>> "Or just what that 6.5mm virtually-round object in the AP X-ray is."
>
>Once again -- what about it? IOW -- So what? It's a round "object" (of
>some sort) on an X-ray of JFK. But WHAT EXACTLY IS IT? What PROOF is
>there that this is a "bullet fragment"? Answer: None.
You evidently don't know the case very well, so the significance escapes you.
This object was not seen in the X-ray in 1963. It *must* have been placed there
afterward. Only the government had controll of these X-rays. You do the
detective work.
>Furthermore -- It seems as though the CTers wish to have their cake and
>eat it all up too with the "6.5mm object on the X-ray" argument.
>Meaning: They (CTers) seem to think that all the X-rays and autopsy
>pics are forgeries/fakes.....therefore WHY didn't these expert "photo
>fakers" take care of this "object" in that X-ray too? They "faked" them
>to supposedly eradicate ALL notions of frontal entry wounds and rear
>exit wounds....but they just LEFT IN a mysterious blob of a
>"6.5mm"-shaped object in the final "phonied" X-ray? Why?
OUCH! Are you confused!!!
It's *this* object that proves forgery... not that someone "forgot" to take it
*OUT*.
>Did they do this to further the false notion that Oswald's 6.5mm weapon
>was used? Is that it? Again, though, I'd ask -- what for? There's tons
>of other evidence to tell the world Oswald's weapon was THE ONLY rifle
>used to kill JFK. So WHY complicate matters with this oddball "object"?
>Makes no sense.
Nope. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. However, it's
interesting to note that this object has been useful for later investigations to
'move' the entry hole UP to a more logical position.
You argue that it makes no sense, but that's *EXACTLY* right, it makes no sense
- because without conspiracy, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AT ALL FOR THIS OBJECT.
It didn't exist in 1963 - you're going to have to accept that. It *did* exist
by the time of the Clark Panel, you surely accept that. Your problem is to
explain how it got there - without any reference to a conspiracy to frame LHO.
>Best explanation -- The "6.5mm blob" is a ...... 6.5mm blob.
That just happened to be 6.5mm in diameter, and perfectly circular in shape
(minus the chunk missing at the bottom).
Your concept of "blob" is a tenuous one, isn't it?
>It's never been officially identified as anything, much less proven to be a
>"bullet fragment".
When you are required to lie to make a point, you haven't made one, have you?
It has *consistently* and *officially* been identified as a bullet fragment by
both the Clark Panel and the HSCA. Why lie about it?
Will you admit that you lied? Or have the balls to quote *ANY* "official"
reference to this object?
>Just like the small little white anomaly/spot very
>low on the back of JFK's neck seen here (which has no official
>explanation either).........
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/autop04.JPEG
Oh? Was there testimony that this didn't exist in 1963?
You've picked a *very* poor analogy.
>Once again, the CT crowd sees smoke and fire when it isn't there at
>all.
When you need to lie about it - what point have you made?
>It's been "created" in the CT mind. Per the CT mindset, EVERY
>SINGLE "unanswerable" in the case (and there are some, I don't deny
>that) MUST BE ANSWERED WITH SMOOTH UNWAVERING SKILL -- or: "It Was A
>Conspiracy!" (per paranoid CTers). Hogwash and horse manure.
Rather silly response for not being able to answer simple problems.
>This is exactly the same type of CT argument made re. the "small round
>bullet wound of ENTRANCE in the front right temple of JFK" (which is
>what CTers say they see in an autopsy photo of JFK to further the
>notion of a Knoll gunman).
>
>Naturally, this "entry hole" does not exist. Never did.
There's *something* in the photo... and strangely enough, it corresponds with
eyewitness statements. (The press conference immediately comes to mind)
>The CTers PUT
>it there themselves to strengthen their non-existent physical-evidence
>case.
If it's truly "non-existent", you'd be able to answer it, wouldn't you?
>And, once again, I'd ask --- What kind of miserable BOOBS were
>doing the supposed "photo fakery" of the official autopsy stuff? They
>"fake" all other portions of the pic to obliterate the idea of a Knoll
>gunman, but they LEAVE IN evidence in the photo of a FRONTAL ENTRY
>WOUND on JFK's head???
They also left F8 ... even if it's difficult to orient.
>Were Gomer Pyle and his cousin Goober performing
>these photo alterations? Must have been them. Because they were mighty
>stupid to miss something like that bullet hole in JFK's temple.
They were also "mighty stupid" to put in a 6.5mm virtually round object...
no-one in the world has been able to explain how a *real* bullet could shear off
a middle section of itself.
>Back to reality --- Humes, Finck, and Boswell all signed the official
>autopsy report of JFK....and they all said that just two bullets hit
>JFK from behind, with no bullets striking the President from the front.
"Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
>Now, either ALL THREE primary autopsy doctors are/were crooked lying
>assholes -- or: the President WAS shot just twice...and from only
>behind him.
They were caught in a situation where they had no choice, certainly.
But, *YOU* have to believe that the autopsy doctors were lying. After all,
Humes stated in the autopsy report that the large head wound was 'chiefly
parietal, but extending into the occipital and temporal' (as best as I can
recall the quote).
The BOH photo shows no such thing.
>Plus: The autopsy doctors (in point of fact) got the ball rolling re.
>the SBT too (which is something that nobody seems to realize
>apparently).
Only by speculating after the fact. Transit was *NOT* shown at the autopsy.
>Arlen Specter didn't "create" the notion that just one
>bullet sped through JFK's back and neck -- the DOCTORS did that in the
>Official Autopsy Report. .....
Yep... by speculation.
>"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
>damaged the trachea, AND MADE ITS EXIT THROUGH THE ANTERIOR SURFACE OF
>THE NECK. As far as can be ascertained, this missile struck no bony
>structures in its path through the body." (Emphasis is my own.) -- From
>JFK's Official Autopsy Report; November 1963
Yep... speculation.
>More of my thoughts on how the SBT got its very-acceptable start in
>November 1963 .... and not strictly from Mr. Arlen Specter and the
>WC........
>
>http://imdb.com/title/tt0102138/board/flat/33265618
>
>
>>> "Or how over 40+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't in the photographs."
>>> "Or how over 50+ eyewitnesses saw something that isn't seen in the Z-film."
>
>So, right here with this absurd CTism, you're purporting that all of
>the autopsy pics and X-rays are "fakes" (yet again) ... AND that the
>Zapruder Film is a "fake". (I also like how these numbers seem to grow
>ever higher and higher with the passage of time. Now it's "50+" and
>"40+ eyewitnesses" per the CT line.)
All those eyewitnesses, making corroborating statements, must have lied, is that
right?
>I must add here (and I've said this on every JFK forum I've spoken on)
>-- I, too, am concerned about the BOH wound witnesses. I simply cannot
>explain the reason why a goodly number of people said they saw a gaping
>wound at the back of JFK's head. I just do not know why.
So, of course, did the autopsy. You'll just have to learn to live with it.
>But by the same token, the CTers are in much the same type of boat with
>a bit of a leak in it -- re. the photos and X-rays and Z-Film, which
>ALL do NOT show the BOH damage.
Untrue, of course.
>I almost consider this point a "draw". However, the evidence of the
>photos and X-rays and Z-Film cannot simply be tossed aside EITHER. The
>CTers have their precious BOH wound witnesses; but the other (LN) side
>is equally as strong (if not stronger) with regard to other pieces of
>documented-as-genuine physical evidence as well. And the pictures and
>Z-Film are not lying. Saying they are all fakes is to make a whole gob
>of people out to be accomplices in a massive cover-up of the murder of
>a U.S. President. And WHERE is the verifiable PROOF of that rather
>large and contemptible allegation? I've yet to see ANY proof from CTers
>to tell the world WHO did this "photo fakery", where it was done, and
>when, etc.
They failed to call a press conference.
Good to see that you made a half-hearted attempt to respond to these points. It
illustrates just how difficult life must be for the LNT'er side of the argument.
I'll be looking forward to your apology for lying about the 6.5mm virtually
round object that you claim has "never been officially identified as anything".
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"If someone proves conclusively that pigs don't have wings they are not required
>>>to come up with alternate theories of pig transportation."
>
>"Proves conclusively" being the operative (and, of course, 100% wrong)
>two-word piece of CTism in this post.
>
>No CTer, ever, has come anywhere CLOSE to "proving conclusively" that
>the SBT is wrong or invalid in any way.
Actually, considering that *all* the medical doctors questioned on the topic
responded that they didn't believe that CE399 did the damage reported, you have
a problem to get past.
In over 40 years, no LNT'er has been able to duplicate even a single wrist bone
and a nearly pristine bullet...
>And that argument still would not get CTers off the hook when it comes
>to explaining HOW IT DID HAPPEN.
Just what eyewitnesses reported, of course.
>Obviously those bullet holes in the
>two victims didn't just appear out of nowhere. Somebody shot those
>guys. And if the SBT is "wrong", then SOMETHING ELSE is correct. What
>the hell is it?
Multiple shooters from different directions. All firing within the same time
span of under 10 seconds.
>Just tell the world. Why keep it to yourself, when you
>(speaking of ANY conspiracy theorist here) could earn millions by
>"solving" this case with your new book entitled:
The case has been sufficiently "solved" to the point of as much as 90% of
Americans...
>"Three Shooters Did The So-Called 'SBT' Damage In Dealey Plaza --
>Here's How!"*
>
>* = We'll work on shortening that book title before it's published
>however.
Try Six Seconds in Dallas.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Mortician Tom Robinson ... saw with his own eyes "an orange-sized hole"
>>>directly in the middle back of JFK's head".
>
>account is not at all "consistent" with many of the other BOH wound
>witnesses who say the wound was much further to the RIGHT-REAR (and not
>"middle" rear).
>
>quite a few), it looks to me like only Dulaney's demonstration of the
>BOH wound he saw matches that of mortician Robinson (per the previous
>"middle back" quote provided by a CTer above). .......
>
>http://www.jfklancerforum.com/old_uploads/rear_head_wound_witnesses.jpg
>
>Plus: The "Avulsion Seen In The Z-Film" brigade might wish to explain
>how a supposed "avulsion" which is (supposedly) in the VERY MIDDLE of
>the back of JFK's head matches the "hole" as seen by virtually any of
>the above-pictured group of witnesses?
>
>Plus: From WHERE in front of President Kennedy could such a gunshot
>have emanated to have created such an "avulsion" in the VERY CENTER of
>the back of JFK's cranium?
>
>Answer (it seems to me)
Don't care for the suggestion made on 22Nov63 by one of the doctors who *saw*
the wound, do you?
>would have to be: The Triple Underpass bridge.
>And that, as anyone can see, is just plain crazy.
Yep... making a "strawman" argument *is* just plain crazy. Most lurkers here
can recognize 'em.
>There was no killer
>with a rifle out in plain sight
"Plain sight"... hmmm... looks like careful hedging, to me.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>in case you didn't know, the WC was tasked by LBJ to investigate the
>assassination of JFK
No, they weren't.
Covered before in this newsgroup. Briefly, the *FBI* was tasked with the
investigation... the Warren Commission's mandate was to "..to ascertain,
evaluate and report the facts relating to the assassination..."
This factoid has been running around forever...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>David, if you concede that there was a hole in the right rear of the
>head , i.e. BEHIND the ears, why isn't this hole apparent in the BOH
>photos?
I'd ask a far more pointed question... David, do you believe that the wound
extended into the *occipital*?
>And if you use the excuse that the scalp had been pulled over the hole
>for the photo, then isn't that "alteration" of the evidence? The photos
>were supposed to represent the wounds, not disguise them, wouldn't you
>agree?
The autopsy report makes it clear that there was an *absence* of bone and scalp
for this large wound.
>One other question. Among the nearly forty witnesses to the back of the
>head, can you name just one who said that JFK's head looked immaculate
>as in the BOH photo? That should be easy for you. And don't cop out by
>saying the invincible Vince will answer all the questions in his tome
>from on high.
Nor will Bugliosi be *able* to answer this one.
Papa Andy
style of argument is fairly repulsive, better suited for you former
absurd defenses of Bush's Iraq escapades than to your new persona as a
CT) but the dictionary defines investigate as
To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically.
so it seems fair to say that the WC did in fact investigate the
assassination
A
Ben Holmes
says...
Your assertion was "the WC was tasked by LBJ to investigate the assassination of
JFK"
That is blatantly incorrect. It's doubtless why you snipped it.
In fact, since it's been carefully pointed out, I'd certainly at this point call
you a liar. Saying it once could be a mistake, or a misunderstanding of the
evidence - but when you *CONTINUE* to assert that LBJ "tasked" the WC with
investigating the crime, despite the clearly quoted words and cites I've
provided, then yes, you're a liar.
The historical record is quite clear on the topic, Chief Warren himself stated
during the Dec 5th executive meeting:
"Now I think our job here is essentially one of the evaluation of evidence as
distinguished from being one of gathering evidence, and I believe that at the
outset at least we can start with the premise that we can rely upon the various
agencies that have been engaged in investigating the matter, the F.B.I., the
Secret Service, and others that I may not know about at the present time."
Now, if Chief Warren himself stated that he understood the words of the tasking
by LBJ, why do *YOU* try to deny it?
You can search the archives for previous discussions of this topic, and locate
quotes given from Ford, Hoover, and others making this crystal clear.
Bud
Every once in a while Ben finds it necessary to prove what a one
dimensional thinker he really is. Here again is just such a case. Of
course on the outset they would start by looking into what the agencies
that had had a head start investigating this matter had accumulated. As
he said, the FBI and the Secret Service were investigating; also the
Dallas police, the CIA, and every news agency in the country. A late
entry to the field was the WC. Obviously, it would be a waste of time
to cover the same ground that had already been covered by numerous
others. But does Warren say "We are going to strictly examine only what
is provided by other agencies"? No. Does Ben read it that way. Yes.
Why? He is a knucklehead. Obviously, what Warren is offering is a
preliminary gameplan on which to proceed, one that may or may not be
strictly adhered to long term, hence "...at the onset at least we can
start with the premise..."
> Now, if Chief Warren himself stated that he understood the words of the tasking
> by LBJ, why do *YOU* try to deny it?
Nothing in that quote about tasking by LBJ, numbnut.
> You can search the archives for previous discussions of this topic, and locate
> quotes given from Ford, Hoover, and others making this crystal clear.
Only if you subject those quotes to Ben`s twisted interpretations.
aeffects
Well, I'll as the obvious question -- with all these investigating
agencies and the MEDIA why did LBJ see find it necessary to create the
Warren Commission....
the Warren Commission was playing clean-up, i.e., "late entry...."
premise? Tell that to J. Edna -- LHO was doomed that afternoon!
Stump, you haven't let me down, nor the lurkers for that matter...
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Who was it who promised us that Final Verdict would be published by March 2006?"
>
> If you're speaking of my Forum posts specifically -- I never "promised"
> a darn thing in this 03/2006 regard. I was merely reporting on
> something I had heard re. "tentative" release dates (which is what that
> new "Final Verdict" release date of May 2007 is too -- an estimated,
> tentative date).
So either you simply lied, or you simply don't know what you are talking
about.
Todd W. Vaughan
Or the tentative release date changed.
Todd
Ben Holmes
Yep... I really *do* believe it when I read LBJ's executive order... or Hoover's
words under oath - in *front* of the Warren Commission.
>Here again is just such a case. Of
>course on the outset they would start by looking into what the agencies
>that had had a head start investigating this matter had accumulated.
LBJ tasked the FBI with the investigation. Are you going to deny this?
>As
>he said, the FBI and the Secret Service were investigating; also the
>Dallas police, the CIA, and every news agency in the country.
Come now... who was *OFFICIALLY* tasked with the job? Feel free to *QUOTE* the
executive order or Congressional bill so doing.
>A late
>entry to the field was the WC.
No, they *weren't*. You *do* understand the concept of "tasking", don't you?
>Obviously, it would be a waste of time
>to cover the same ground that had already been covered by numerous
>others. But does Warren say "We are going to strictly examine only what
>is provided by other agencies"? No. Does Ben read it that way. Yes.
Actually, Warren's words *back me up*, and fail to support your sloppy
arguments.
Where's any cites or quotes, coward?
>Why? He is a knucklehead. Obviously, what Warren is offering is a
>preliminary gameplan on which to proceed, one that may or may not be
>strictly adhered to long term, hence "...at the onset at least we can
>start with the premise..."
Didn't finish that sentence, I see.
Why not stop the BS and actually provide A CITATION OR A SOURCE FOR YOUR SILLY
ASSERTIONS?
>> Now, if Chief Warren himself stated that he understood the words of
>> the tasking by LBJ, why do *YOU* try to deny it?
>
> Nothing in that quote about tasking by LBJ, numbnut.
Who gave him his job? What executive order *specified* what he was to do?
Come on, coward, provide some evidence... cites... quotes... sources....
ANYTHING...
>> You can search the archives for previous discussions of this topic,
>> and locate quotes given from Ford, Hoover, and others making this
>> crystal clear.
>
> Only if you subject those quotes to Ben`s twisted interpretations.
You will search endlessly if you try locating any evidence supplied by Bud in
defense of his silly assertions.
The quotes I give, on the other hand, *precisely* back up what I assert.
David VP
I, quite obviously, "conceded" no such thing . Where in any prior post
did I "concede" a BOH wound?
I was merely pointing out that (as usual) even the CTers cannot agree
on much of anything. (Or, in that BOH case, the WITNESSES can't agree
on precisely where in the head the wound was located.)
David VP
I didn't lie. As far as I'm aware, that "object" has never been
officially identified as a "bullet fragment", or as anything. Why don't
you prove that it was. Good luck.
Perhaps you can then tell the world WHY in the hell any conspirators
NEEDED to ADD a 6.5mm "object" to one X-ray to further the "Oswald's
Guilty" POV, when these so-called conspirators ALREADY had GOBS of
other evidence to paint him guilty (CE399, the two bullet fragments in
the limo tied conclusively to LHO's rifle, the bullet shells in the SN,
and on and on).
There would be NO REASON at all to add in a 6.5mm "object" to an X-ray
years after the fact. How much stuff did they NEED to "frame" poor
sweet Lee? Geesh.
Papa Andy
among other things I guess you don't know how google groups work
you can't refute the dictionary so you change the subject
A
David VP
And yet a single "Patsy" is supposedly doing all of this shooting from
ONE single location with ONE single rifle that has only ONE specific
ballistics footprint .... and these THREE shooters accomplish an
"SBT-like" shooting to perfection (enough to make it only LOOK like a
single bullet might have done it all) AND .....
the biggie ladies & germs .....
..... ALL THE BULLETS GET LOST BETWEEN DP AND PARKLAND SO THAT
NOBODY'LL EVER SEE THEM AND DISCOVER THE MULTI-SHOOTER PLOT.
~~Sigh~~
Yeah...I guess you guys are right....that above CT scenario is MUCH
more sound, logical, and believable than any kind of cockeyed
LN/LHO/SBT piece of "based-on-the-evidence" nonsense. Much better
indeed.
~~rollin' 'em~~
Papa Andy
it states in the foreword
PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON, by Executive Order No. 11130 dated
November 29, 1963,1 created this Commission to investigate the
assassination on November 22, 1963, of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the
35th President of the United States. The President directed the
Commission to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
assassination and the subsequent killing of the alleged assassin and to
report its findings and conclusions to him.
A
Papa Andy
here is the letter to the president that opens the WCR
September 24, 1964
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. President:
Your Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy
on November 22, 1963, having completed its assignment in accordance
with Executive Order No. 11130 of November 29, 1963, herewith submits
its final report.
Respectfully,
[Signed]
Earl Warren, Chairman
Richard B. Russell
John Sherman Cooper
Hale Boggs
Gerald R. Ford
Allen W. Dulles
John J. McCloy
but according to Ben I'm a liar when I say the WC was tasked by LBJ to
investigate
c'mon genius let's here it now
A
David VP
talking
about."
TODD: "Or the tentative release date changed."
Bingo Todd. Exactly.
I guess Tony thinks I should now apologize for merely stating a
"tentative" release date last year.
BTW -- This is the same Anthony Marsh who (based on an incident at a
local bookstore last year when VB's book was showing up in their
computers as "canceled in 2003") concluded beyond all doubt that
Vincent's book was canceled altogether and would never, ever see the
light of day.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8d08b388f3e79cb5
>From Mr. Marsh via the above link:
"Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of someone here who really
believes that the Bugliosi book will come out, I went to the local
bookstore yesterday and asked them when the Bugliosi book will be
coming out. And they told me that the publisher had canceled the book
in 2003." -- A. Marsh; January 1st, 2005
Who needs to eat some crow now, Mr. Marsh, re. the book never getting
published? Or, better still, let me throw Anthony's exact words right
back in his face re. that supposed "cancellation" (which really merely
indicated a "postponement").......
Ben Holmes
says...
How silly...
>>>"I'll be looking forward to your apology for lying about the 6.5mm virtually
>>>round object that you claim has "never been officially identified as anything".
>
>I didn't lie.
Sure you did. It's *IMPOSSIBLE* to read *ANY* official statement concerning
this object without knowing what the Clark Panel and HSCA called it.
And if your asserting what the "official identification" of this object *is*,
then you *must* have read what they said...
If you *did*, then your a liar, as you know quite well that it was referred to
as a bullet fragment.
If you *didn't*, then you lied about knowing what the official identification
was.
>As far as I'm aware, that "object" has never been
>officially identified as a "bullet fragment", or as anything. Why don't
>you prove that it was. Good luck.
Not interested. I could point to a white cloud, and you'd argue that it's
really green.
The quotes can be looked up by anyone interested.
>Perhaps you can then tell the world WHY in the hell any conspirators
>NEEDED to ADD a 6.5mm "object" to one X-ray to further the "Oswald's
>Guilty" POV, when these so-called conspirators ALREADY had GOBS of
>other evidence to paint him guilty (CE399, the two bullet fragments in
>the limo tied conclusively to LHO's rifle, the bullet shells in the SN,
>and on and on).
That's *YOUR* problem, not mine. It's a *FACT* that this object didn't exist on
the AP X-ray the night of the autopsy.
>There would be NO REASON at all to add in a 6.5mm "object" to an X-ray
>years after the fact. How much stuff did they NEED to "frame" poor
>sweet Lee? Geesh.
You see what a spot you're in?
Ben Holmes
says...
Why do you cite this? You stated: "in case you didn't know, the WC was tasked
by LBJ to investigate the assassination of JFK"
Now, to *prove* that, all you have to do is to *PRODUCE* that "tasking". It's
correctly noted above that it's Executive Order No. 11130.
Then, you'll also be required to call Warren a liar, Ford a liar, Hoover a liar,
and probably a few others that don't come to mind right now.
It would *also* be nice if you could actually name the "investigator" that was
on the staff of the Warren Commission... Anyone who had prior murder
investigation experience, do you suppose?
Ben Holmes
says...
You produce a letter *TO* the President, when attempting to prove what the
*PRESIDENT* said?
Another brilliant piece of research... given to us by the LNT'ers...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Multiple shooters from different directions. All firing within the same time
>>>span of under 10 seconds."
>
>And yet a single "Patsy" is supposedly doing all of this shooting from
>ONE single location with ONE single rifle that has only ONE specific
>ballistics footprint .... and these THREE shooters accomplish an
>"SBT-like" shooting to perfection (enough to make it only LOOK like a
>single bullet might have done it all) AND .....
No, it wasn't made to look as if one bullet could have "done it all"... it took
the combination of restricting the doctors from dissecting the wounds, along
with a speculation made afterwards, to get the transit needed. It then required
the government to browbeat Parkland doctors until they were willing to state
that the neck 'could have been' an exit wound, despite their observations being
the *ONLY* medical observations known to exist.
Combine this with a little cleaning up of excess bullets, and swapping of
bullets, and wallah! We have it!
That and a little browbeating of any eyewitnesses that were too sure that they'd
heard more than 3 shots...
>the biggie ladies & germs .....
>
>..... ALL THE BULLETS GET LOST BETWEEN DP AND PARKLAND SO THAT
>NOBODY'LL EVER SEE THEM AND DISCOVER THE MULTI-SHOOTER PLOT.
Yep... that's what happened. When people pointed out where bullets struck the
grass, for example, it gets dug up, a photograph hits the paper showing an
unnamed government agent digging out the bullet, then it simply disappears.
Let's not forget the statements concerning a nearly whole bullet at Bethesda.
Or the fact that *no-one* who handled CE399 was willing to identify it.
>~~Sigh~~
>
>Yeah...I guess you guys are right....that above CT scenario is MUCH
>more sound, logical, and believable
And based on the evidence...
Ben Holmes
says...
Nope... you can't. You stated that "in case you didn't know, the WC was tasked
by LBJ to investigate the assassination of JFK", yet you *still* haven't
produced any such tasking.
When you *do*, you'll have an argument... then we'll get into what Warren &
Hoover made specific.
Go for it.
David VP
bullets, and wallah! We have it!"
Sure. Just like THAT. Easy as taking candy from a baby, right? Are you
that naive? You REALLY think that ALL OF THE REAL BULLETS were never
noticed by a single person at Parkland? If yes....how? How is that
possible (particularly with regard to Connally's injuries...he didn't
die remember).
>> "Yep... that's what happened. When people pointed out where bullets struck the
grass, for example..."
You silly-willy. I'm not talking about any "missed" shots. I'm talking
about the bullets INSIDE THE TWO VICTIMS that magically "vanished" into
thin air (despite the fact there are AT LEAST THREE of them that need
to replace CE399).
How gullible can you get? (Don't answer. I just had a meal.)
aeffects
are... oh, you might try addressing the points
just tying to helpout here
David VP
Gee. This might be a record for a 2-line post -- at least eight grammar
and spelling errors. Nice job.
Sam
"Papa Andy" <playiso...@email.com> wrote in part:
> September 24, 1964
>
> The President
1+1+1=3
another 33
David VP
Hi Vince (P.). .......
Can I ask you an off-topic question Vince? Thanks. .......
What "pull" do you have at Amazon.com that enables you to garner a
"Spotlight Review" position on a goodly number of your brand-new
(albeit redundant) reviews there @ Amazon?
I know from experience that the Amazon people rarely (very rarely)
change and rotate those "Spotlight" reviews (even though they claim
they do it "on a daily basis for most products"). Some of them haven't
changed for five years...or more. And yet I've taken note that many,
many of your reviews (on the very first day posted) immediately have
gone into a "Spotlight" position there at Amazon.
IMO this is simply not possible (nor probable; nor fair) unless you are
pulling some inside strings at that website. You must know the people
who decide what reviews should be in the "Spotlights". Am I correct in
this assumption?
Going into the "Spotlight" position on Day 1 is, in fact, totally
unfair to other Amazon reviewers who have had reviews posted months
prior and have garnered many "Helpful" votes (which, of course, also
takes into {false} account the "cheat" votes that many, many reviewers
place on their own reviews themselves by voting from separate computer
terminals).
Per Amazon's own guidelines, a "Spotlight Review" has to be EARNED over
time and via voters' helpful votes. .....
"8. What are Spotlight Reviews? --- Spotlight Reviews are based on how
well the review was written and how helpful it was deemed by our
customers. We surface them on the site so that you can get good
information quickly." -- Via the Amazon.com FAQ linked below.....
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/community/reviewers-faq.html/102-4869852-5319368
I was just curious as to how you (Vince) have accomplished so many
undeserving "Spotlights" practically overnight.
Thanks.
aeffects
-- never fear Penie -- someday you'll grow up and write a book.
I expect you to hit 100 posts by the end of the week...
David VP
running toward the limo from the grass infield on Elm St." is "Francine
Burrows (or "Burroughs", per the index of Trask's Z-Film Book "National
Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film")?
The girl stopping dead in her tracks I've always thought was identified
as Toni Foster. Trask says she was "self-identified as Francine
Burrows, who worked in the nearby Terminal Annex" (pg. 56 of his book).
Bud
Words you apparently don`t understand. For instance, if Warren says
"essentially one of evaluation of evidence" (which in itself is a key
aspect of investigation ), why do you read that as "entirely one of
evaluation of evidence"?
> >Here again is just such a case. Of
> >course on the outset they would start by looking into what the agencies
> >that had had a head start investigating this matter had accumulated.
>
>
> LBJ tasked the FBI with the investigation. Are you going to deny this?
The point of contention is whether the WC was.
> >As
> >he said, the FBI and the Secret Service were investigating; also the
> >Dallas police, the CIA, and every news agency in the country.
>
>
> Come now... who was *OFFICIALLY* tasked with the job? Feel free to *QUOTE* the
> executive order or Congressional bill so doing.
The executive order that uses words that are very nearly the very
definition of investigating? This "LBJ didn`t tell them to jump, he
merely told them to push off the ground with their legs until they were
airborne" argument is weaker than most of your drivel.
> >A late
> >entry to the field was the WC.
>
>
> No, they *weren't*. You *do* understand the concept of "tasking", don't you?
The problem is that you don`t understand the concept of
"investigating".
> >Obviously, it would be a waste of time
> >to cover the same ground that had already been covered by numerous
> >others. But does Warren say "We are going to strictly examine only what
> >is provided by other agencies"? No. Does Ben read it that way. Yes.
>
>
> Actually, Warren's words *back me up*, and fail to support your sloppy
> arguments.
No, actually Warren`s words do nothing to support your premise that
the WC did not investigate this case. He only outlines an initial
course of action.
> Where's any cites or quotes, coward?
It`s easier to slap you around with the paltry stuff you supply me.
> >Why? He is a knucklehead. Obviously, what Warren is offering is a
> >preliminary gameplan on which to proceed, one that may or may not be
> >strictly adhered to long term, hence "...at the onset at least we can
> >start with the premise..."
>
>
> Didn't finish that sentence, I see.
Merely emphasizing the part which makes my point.Whatever comes
next can only be seen as an intial gameplan, because of the context
these words supply. But, you do have a problem with context, don`t you?
> Why not stop the BS and actually provide A CITATION OR A SOURCE FOR YOUR SILLY
> ASSERTIONS?
<snicker> Stop shouting, Ben, I can hear you.
> >> Now, if Chief Warren himself stated that he understood the words of
> >> the tasking by LBJ, why do *YOU* try to deny it?
> >
> > Nothing in that quote about tasking by LBJ, numbnut.
>
> Who gave him his job? What executive order *specified* what he was to do?
The quote you supplied contains nothing about tasking by LBJ.
> Come on, coward, provide some evidence... cites... quotes... sources....
> ANYTHING...
It`s your premise that the WC didn`t investigate. Support it,
preferably with quotes that support your claims.
> >> You can search the archives for previous discussions of this topic,
> >> and locate quotes given from Ford, Hoover, and others making this
> >> crystal clear.
> >
> > Only if you subject those quotes to Ben`s twisted interpretations.
>
> You will search endlessly if you try locating any evidence supplied by Bud in
> defense of his silly assertions.
It is your silly assertion we are discussing.
> The quotes I give, on the other hand, *precisely* back up what I assert.
So, what you were asserting was what Warren felt the initial
approach to his investigation should be? Because that is what the quote
you supplied talked about.
Bud
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Tony,
>
> Or the tentative release date changed.
>
People with no credibility don`t care what comes out of their mouths.
Bud
It a letter telling the President what they *did*. The President
gave the WC instructions that, by definition, were instructions to
investigate. So they did.
> Another billiant piece of research... given to us by the LNT'ers...
Ben`s latest cheap debating tactic. Calling CT that disagree with
him LNT. Keep the kooks on your side of the aisle, don`t foist them off
on us.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "Combine this with a little cleaning up of excess bullets, and swapping of
>bullets, and wallah! We have it!"
>
>Sure. Just like THAT. Easy as taking candy from a baby, right? Are you
>that naive? You REALLY think that ALL OF THE REAL BULLETS were never
>noticed by a single person at Parkland?
They were never noticed by a single person in Tampa Florida, either.
>If yes....how? How is that
>possible (particularly with regard to Connally's injuries...he didn't
>die remember).
>
>> "Yep... that's what happened. When people pointed out where bullets struck
>> the grass, for example..."
>
>You silly-willy. I'm not talking about any "missed" shots. I'm talking
>about the bullets INSIDE THE TWO VICTIMS that magically "vanished" into
>thin air (despite the fact there are AT LEAST THREE of them that need
>to replace CE399).
When you create silly scenarios, you get silly answers...
>How gullible can you get? (Don't answer. I just had a meal.)
I'm responding to *this*, aren't I?
Papa Andy
note the use of the word investigate
The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that
may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by federal or state
authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds
desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such
assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man
charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and
conclusions.
The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to
employ such assistants as it deems necessary.
don't feed your ignorance by calling me an LNer that charge can never
be backed up by evidence (I hate it when Bud is right about anything
but he was correct in his discussion of this)
face the facts
or was LBJ a liar when he signed the EO
A
Papa Andy
Your Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy
was it a lie, an act of cowardice, a conspiracy or what?
you have a repugnant style of argumentation
you demand facts, facts, facts
but any facts that you don't agree with are the mark of a liar or a
coward
if that doesn't work you claim CTs are LNs or some other dodge
do you actually think that anyone that can outwit their breakfast in
the morning isn't wise to you?
A
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>here is a section of the actual executive order
>note the use of the word investigate
Dishonestly, I note that you didn't have the balls to quote the *entire* text
FROM THE BEGINNING.
Why is that?
>The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by
>the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that
>may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by federal or state
>authorities; to make such further investigation as the Commission finds
>desirable; to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding such
>assassination, including the subsequent violent death of the man
>charged with the assassination, and to report to me its findings and
>conclusions.
>
>The Commission is empowered to prescribe its own procedures and to
>employ such assistants as it deems necessary.
Name the investigators...
>don't feed your ignorance by calling me an LNer
You use LNT'er tactics, then you're going to be called on it.
>that charge can never
>be backed up by evidence (I hate it when Bud is right about anything
>but he was correct in his discussion of this)
>
>face the facts
I have. I've cited and quoted them... this isn't the first time this topic has
come up.
And, just like a LNT'er, you've selectively chosen your evidence, and NOT QUOTED
THE PART YOU DON'T LIKE.
>or was LBJ a liar when he signed the EO
Nope. Nor have you accurately depicted the facts.
>A
curtj...@webtv.net
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> This book has been delayed more than the 2nd coming. David Von Pein is a
> guy that actually loves Bugliosi more than Bugliosi, if he isn't
> Bugliosi himself. They booted him off the Lancer board for his
> compulsive mile long lone nut postings & he trashes ahelluva lot of JFK
> Books on Amazon with one star reviews.Nothing like fairness, and an open
> mind, exuding a fresh honest approach is there?
>
> I loved Bugliosi's previous works, but there is no way I can truly
> respect anyone who is not open to conspiracy that has studied the case.
While Mr. Bugliosi has written some pretty interesting stuff like the
Bermuda Triangle, and about the Manson family, I afraid his notariety
will sway more than a stable wading through the evidence of the JFK
case. With all the authors who seem not to go the extra yard in this
case, it has been surmized that they have been paid off to lead astray.
I hope Mr. Bugliosi isn't swayed in this manner as he could be
postioned to be the darling of the establishment. Being a prosector, I
am afraid hasn't given him the qualification to know how big business
and big government operates. Has he ever been involved in CIA dirty
tricks or how agents and their agendi operate, or the Mafia? Don't
think so. Is he prolific in knowing the mind of a crazed assassin?
Well, maybe Manson, but is he going to attempt to associate a sniper of
JFK with Manson? That could be the wrong way to go. How does Mr.
Bugliosi feel about the RFK case? If he can't see conspiracy in his
hometown, how can one expect him to be effective in disseminating all
the needed facts in the JFK, to come to logical conclusions?
CJ
Ben Holmes
Why continue to snip the previous statements???
In article <dq4gm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>In article <1137032220....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Papa Andy
>says...
>>
>>oh dear the dirty cowards and liars speak again
>>
>>here is the letter to the president that opens the WCR
>>
>>September 24, 1964
>>
>>The President
>>The White House
>>Washington, D. C.
>>
>>Dear Mr. President:
>>
>>Your Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy
>>on November 22, 1963, having completed its assignment in accordance
>>with Executive Order No. 11130 of November 29, 1963, herewith submits
>>its final report.
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>[Signed]
>>Earl Warren, Chairman
>>Richard B. Russell
>>John Sherman Cooper
>>Hale Boggs
>>Gerald R. Ford
>>Allen W. Dulles
>>John J. McCloy
>>
>>
>>but according to Ben I'm a liar when I say the WC was tasked by LBJ to
>>investigate
>>c'mon genius let's here it now
>>
>>A
>
>You produce a letter *TO* the President, when attempting to prove what the
>*PRESIDENT* said?
>
>Another brilliant piece of research... given to us by the LNT'ers...
This really isn't rocket science. If you assert that the Warren Commission was
tasked with something, all you need to do is *provide that tasking*.
Then you've at least *started* to make your case.
>so why did they refer to themselves in the letter to LBJ as
>Your Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy
>
>was it a lie, an act of cowardice, a conspiracy or what?
What does it have to do with anything? It's *NOT WHAT YOU ASSERTED*. What's
difficult to understand about this?
>you have a repugnant style of argumentation
>you demand facts, facts, facts
Yep... I realize that LNT'ers hate this, but evidence and citation is the only
way to go.
When someone makes a statement, they should be able to support it with
citations, quotes, sources... etc.
>but any facts that you don't agree with are the mark of a liar or a
>coward
You mean, of course, *incomplete* facts, incorrect facts, and so forth... Yep,
it *is* the mark of a liar, or in the very least, a person prone to dishonesty.
There *IS* a "tasking" for the Warren Commission. Why can't you produce it?
>if that doesn't work you claim CTs are LNs or some other dodge
If you demonstrate LNT'er characteristics, I'll merely point them out. You'll
have to deal with it.
>do you actually think that anyone that can outwit their breakfast in
>the morning isn't wise to you?
>
>A
When are you going to *QUOTE* the tasking of the Warren Commission???
Why is it so difficult to *support* what you claimed?
You said it, yet you can't provide the evidence. Why is this?
Papa Andy
I don't need to quote the entire document or sing the national anthem
balanced on one foot while eating potato chips or anything else
not only were they tasked to investigate the assassination
they did so
they called witnesses
they reviewed evidence and reports
they hired staff to travel about and gather more evidence
that is investigating
it is investigating according to the dictionary
it is investigating according to the EO
It is investigating according to the WC
To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically.
the defintion of investigate
Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United
States, I hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report
upon the facts
To examine and judge carefully; appraise
the definition of evaluate -- notice that it is
similar to that of investigate
To discover with certainty, as through examination
the definition of ascertain -- notice that it is
similar to that of invstigate
unlike a vast percentage of those that have been labeled liars by Ben
Ben has actually lied about me
He knows full well where I stand on the JFK assassination as regards CT
vs LN
but just like with the word investigate Ben changes the meaning of
terms to suit his (supposed, giving him the benefit of the doubt)
purposes
he reveals that an LNer is not one who thinks that Oswald was the only
person involved in the JFK assassination, rather it is someone who
disagrees with Ben
A
Sam
news:1137084693.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> This book has been delayed more than the 2nd coming. David Von Pein is a
>> guy that actually loves Bugliosi more than Bugliosi, if he isn't
>> Bugliosi himself. They booted him off the Lancer board for his
>> compulsive mile long lone nut postings & he trashes ahelluva lot of JFK
>> Books on Amazon with one star reviews.Nothing like fairness, and an open
>> mind, exuding a fresh honest approach is there?
>>
>> I loved Bugliosi's previous works, but there is no way I can truly
>> respect anyone who is not open to conspiracy that has studied the case.
>
> While Mr. Bugliosi has written some pretty interesting stuff like the
> Bermuda Triangle, and about the Manson family, I afraid his notariety
> will sway more than a stable wading through the evidence of the JFK
> case. With all the authors who seem not to go the extra yard in this
> case, it has been surmized that they have been paid off to lead astray.
> I hope Mr. Bugliosi isn't swayed in this manner as he could be
> postioned to be the darling of the establishment. Being a prosector, I
> am afraid hasn't given him the qualification to know how big business
> and big government operates.
maybe he was paid off by both, as a prosecutor
Bud
Papa Andy wrote:
> you have serious mental problems
Good call. He is indeed unbalanced.
> I don't need to quote the entire document or sing the national anthem
> balanced on one foot while eating potato chips or anything else
Of course not. The part of the passage that says "...to make such
further investigation as the Commission finds desirable..." is all
that is needed to make your case. LBJ left it to the Commission`s
descretion how to proceed, to do whatever investigating they saw fit to
return findings to him. It doesn`t matter what else is said, unless
another passage rescinds this one, in which case why would it be
included?
> not only were they tasked to investigate the assassination
>
> they did so
>
> they called witnesses
> they reviewed evidence and reports
> they hired staff to travel about and gather more evidence
>
> that is investigating
>
> it is investigating according to the dictionary
> it is investigating according to the EO
> It is investigating according to the WC
>
> To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically.
> the defintion of investigate
>
>
> Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United
> States, I hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report
> upon the facts
>
> To examine and judge carefully; appraise
> the definition of evaluate -- notice that it is
> similar to that of investigate
>
> To discover with certainty, as through examination
> the definition of ascertain -- notice that it is
> similar to that of investigate
>
> unlike a vast percentage of those that have been labeled liars by Ben
>
> Ben has actually lied about me
Join the club. And it`s piss poor thinking to think you are in some
underserving minority of people who were called liars by Ben. Most
people Ben calls liars are just people viewing the same information
differently, and express a different POV.
> He knows full well where I stand on the JFK assassination as regards CT
> vs LN
> but just like with the word investigate Ben changes the meaning of
> terms to suit his (supposed, giving him the benefit of the doubt)
> purposes
> he reveals that an LNer is not one who thinks that Oswald was the only
> person involved in the JFK assassination, rather it is someone who
> disagrees with Ben
Yah, Ben is indeed in need on an intervention. I do what I can to
help him, but I am only one person. In any case, Andy, you are likely a
better reasearcher than I am, it occurred to me that a statement by LBJ
would have been released announcing the formation of the WC. It would
amaze me if that announcement did not include the words "investigate",
or "investigation" (how could you describe what the WC was about
without using one of those two words?). I spent some time trying to
track it down, went to the LBJ Library and looked, to no avail. Maybe
you will have better luck, unless of course you feel you`ve wasted
enough time on it ( which you have), and have already proven your point
(which you also have).
> A
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>you have serious mental problems
Pointing out dishonesty is a "mental problem?"... well, perhaps so... I'm sure
that *your* mental health is not improved by me pointing out how dishonest you
are.
>I don't need to quote the entire document
Actually, just so lurkers aren't confused, it's merely the first sentence...
here's the relevant statement:
"Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I
hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts
relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the
subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination."
This is quite clearly the "tasking" for the Warren Commission. They were to
"ascertain, evaluate and report". Which is exactly the sort of job that
Senators and Congressmen are well suited for. They aren't normally tasked with
*investigating* murders... nor are most of them qualified to do such.
LBJ was not a stupid man, despite my personal dislike for him, he was clearly an
intelligent man. It certainly makes sense to me to have the FBI investigate,
and an 'oversight' committee to work the political angle... which is exactly
what happened.
Chief Warren certainly understood his tasking... he made it clear to the other
members in the Dec. 5th executive session where he stated: "Now I think our job
here is essentially one for the evaluation of evidence as distinguished from
being one of gathering evidence..."
Chief Warren was not a stupid man either... he was, for example, literate.
Again, here's another example:
Representative FORD. Under your authority from the President, the authority
which gave you the FBI, the responsibility to conduct this investigation it is
not an authority with a terminal point. It is an authority that goes on
indefinitely?
Mr. HOOVER. Very definitely so. The President wanted a full and thorough
investigation made of this matter, and we have tried to do so. ...
Ford doesn't appear to be confused on the matter, nor does Hoover. Why are
*you* confused?
>or sing the national anthem
>balanced on one foot while eating potato chips or anything else
Silly nonsense like this is merely that...
Attempting to quote the tasking given to the Warren Commission to support your
statement, AND LEAVING IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, is hardly a difficult thing to do
for an honest person.
Why couldn't you do it?
>not only were they tasked to investigate the assassination
>
>they did so
Then all you need to do is provide this "tasking".
As I've just *quoted* it above, it seems that you've got the short end of the
stick.
In fact, just for any lurkers interested, here's the executive order that
created and tasked the Warren Commission:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A1_ExecOrder11130.pdf
You won't get the facts from Papa Andy...
>they called witnesses
Yep... ones that had already been questioned by the FBI, and then the WC merely
put their testimony on the record. Very carefully 'coaching' them beforehand,
and bringing out *only* the information that they wanted on the record. Quite
often even interupting an eyewitness if they started to get into areas that the
WC didn't want on the record. (Even to the point of going *off* the record to
discuss it!)
This is a completely different procedure from "investigating"...
>they reviewed evidence and reports
That *IS* what they were tasked to do. Remember? "ascertain, evaluate and
report?"
They reviewed the evidence collected by the FBI... and when they didn't feel
that enough evidence was there - THEY ASKED THE FBI TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION.
>they hired staff to travel about and gather more evidence
Nope. You cannot provide the name of a *SINGLE* investigator. What you *can*
provide are the names of more lawyers...
>that is investigating
You may call it such if you wish. The WC certainly used the word in so
describing it.
But the Warren Commission was *NOT* tasked to investigate. They were tasked to
"ascertain, evaluate and report"... it was the FBI's job to investigate.
This *IS* what you attempted to assert - that the WC was "tasked" with the
investigation. They weren't - as I've so clearly shown.
>it is investigating according to the dictionary
Oh, perhaps you might make that argument. Funny thing, though, anytime the
Warren Commission had a question, they didn't go investigate it, they ASKED THE
FBI TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER.
Funny way to "investigate", if you ask me. A *perfect* way to "ascertain,
evaluate and report" though, isn't it?
>it is investigating according to the EO
>It is investigating according to the WC
Neither of which has anything to do with the WC's "tasking".
> To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically.
> the defintion of investigate
>
>
>Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United
>States, I hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report
>upon the facts
Bravo! The statement that you were too afraid of to post initially!!!
Lurkers may wonder why you couldn't do this? Perhaps because it's all too clear
what the President was tasking the Commission to do?
> To examine and judge carefully; appraise
> the definition of evaluate -- notice that it is
>similar to that of investigate
>
> To discover with certainty, as through examination
> the definition of ascertain -- notice that it is
>similar to that of invstigate
>
>unlike a vast percentage of those that have been labeled liars by Ben
>
>Ben has actually lied about me
Nope. Told nothing but the truth. You've been dishonest in your citations, you
keep snipping and not responding to the points raised. You treat citations and
sources the same way LNT'ers do.
>He knows full well where I stand on the JFK assassination as regards CT
>vs LN
Actually, I don't.
>but just like with the word investigate Ben changes the meaning of
>terms to suit his (supposed, giving him the benefit of the doubt)
>purposes
>he reveals that an LNer is not one who thinks that Oswald was the only
>person involved in the JFK assassination, rather it is someone who
>disagrees with Ben
>
>A
Not "disagree" with me... disagree with President Johnson, who was the one who
tasked the WC. Disagree with Chief Warren, who asserted that he understood that
tasking. Disagree with Hoover, who made it perfectly plain who was in charge of
the investigation. Disagree with the actual *facts* - the WC had no
'investigators' on it's staff, and when questions arose, THEY ASKED THE FBI TO
PROVIDE THE ANSWER.
True "investigators" would simply go out in the field and *investigate*.
The purpose of the WC was to get things "on the record"... they certainly
couldn't use CD1, now, could they?
Papa Andy
Papa Andy
satisfies the great Holmes (not Sherlock, not even Katie, just Ben)
unless the dictionary is part of some bizarre plot you do not
understand English
I clearly provided the definitions of investigate, evaluate and
ascertain
and showed they are more or less synonomous
but you ignore any attempt at rational thought and fulminate strangley
about balls and fear and other irrelevancies
A
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1137063539.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
>> Tony,
>>
>> Or the tentative release date changed.
>>
>> Todd
> People with no credibility don`t care what comes out of their mouths.
That comes from "The Top" folks.
The "Absolute Tippety Top".
For he KNOWS of which he speaks.
================================================================
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1137064410....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
==============================================================
> Ben`s latest cheap debating tactic. Calling CT that disagree with
> him LNT. Keep the kooks on your side of the aisle, don`t foist them off
> on us.
BUD;
Those of who have read the evidence/testimony KNOW you felons are on a
different side.
=================================================================
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1137092542....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Papa Andy
> says...
> >
> >you have serious mental problems
>
>
> Pointing out dishonesty is a "mental problem?"... well, perhaps so... I'm sure
> that *your* mental health is not improved by me pointing out how dishonest you
> are.
It seems to be of benefit to my mental health to point out what a
kook you are.
> >I don't need to quote the entire document
>
> Actually, just so lurkers aren't confused, it's merely the first sentence...
> here's the relevant statement:
>
> "Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I
> hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts
> relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the
> subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination."
Yah, he used just about every word that means "investigate" but
"investigate". The goal is to write a report and submit findings. LBJ
told the WC to ivestigate in any manner they see fit to achieve this
goal.
> This is quite clearly the "tasking" for the Warren Commission. They were to
> "ascertain, evaluate and report". Which is exactly the sort of job that
> Senators and Congressmen are well suited for. They aren't normally tasked with
> *investigating* murders... nor are most of them qualified to do such.
They are mostly lawyers, Ben, they are familiar with the law, and
the English language. They knew they were being told to launch an
investigation into this matter without the word "investigate" being
included in the first sentence.
> LBJ was not a stupid man, despite my personal dislike for him, he was clearly an
> intelligent man. It certainly makes sense to me to have the FBI investigate,
> and an 'oversight' committee to work the political angle... which is exactly
> what happened.
You`re beat, Ben, and nobody gives a fuck what makes sense to you.
> Chief Warren certainly understood his tasking... he made it clear to the other
> members in the Dec. 5th executive session where he stated: "Now I think our job
> here is essentially one for the evaluation of evidence as distinguished from
> being one of gathering evidence..."
Yet, he didn`t say "entirely", he said "essentially". And he also
made it clear this was only a course of action to be followed
initially, not guidelines to be followed throughout the investigation.
> Chief Warren was not a stupid man either... he was, for example, literate.
Yet, you seem to have problems with the words he is using.
> Again, here's another example:
>
> Representative FORD. Under your authority from the President, the authority
> which gave you the FBI, the responsibility to conduct this investigation it is
> not an authority with a terminal point. It is an authority that goes on
> indefinitely?
> Mr. HOOVER. Very definitely so. The President wanted a full and thorough
> investigation made of this matter, and we have tried to do so. ...
>
> Ford doesn't appear to be confused on the matter, nor does Hoover. Why are
> *you* confused?
It is you that are confused. The FBI`s investigation was being
conducted before the WC was even thought of. It is *that*
investigation that is being referred to. Obviously, the Warren
Commission investigation *did* have a terminal point, it disbanded when
it submitted it`s findings. Or do you think it is still in session?
> >or sing the national anthem
> >balanced on one foot while eating potato chips or anything else
>
>
> Silly nonsense like this is merely that...
>
> Attempting to quote the tasking given to the Warren Commission to support your
> statement, AND LEAVING IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, is hardly a difficult thing to do
> for an honest person.
>
> Why couldn't you do it?
He included the passage that proved his point. In case you missed it,
it included this portion which just destroys your premise... ".. to
make such further investigation as the
Commission finds desirable...". It is part of LBJ`s instructions on how
to proceed, even if it isn`t in the first sentence.
> >not only were they tasked to investigate the assassination
> >
> >they did so
>
>
> Then all you need to do is provide this "tasking".
He did that.
> As I've just *quoted* it above, it seems that you've got the short end of the
> stick.
Are you going to keep supplying quotes that do not support your
premise?
> In fact, just for any lurkers interested, here's the executive order that
> created and tasked the Warren Commission:
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A1_ExecOrder11130.pdf
>
> You won't get the facts from Papa Andy...
The lurkers are being treated to a good example of how Ben operates,
though.
> >they called witnesses
>
>
> Yep... ones that had already been questioned by the FBI, and then the WC merely
> put their testimony on the record.
You can never be sure what a witness is going to say.
> Very carefully 'coaching' them beforehand,
> and bringing out *only* the information that they wanted on the record.
You can never be sure what a witness is going to say.
> Quite
> often even interupting an eyewitness if they started to get into areas that the
> WC didn't want on the record. (Even to the point of going *off* the record to
> discuss it!)
You can never be sure what is said off the record.
> This is a completely different procedure from "investigating"...
No, it is common in this type of investigating to review what has
been gathered by other sources. Warren said he was going to start by
looking at what the FBI had, and what the SS had, and what souces he
might be unaware of had.
> >they reviewed evidence and reports
>
> That *IS* what they were tasked to do. Remember? "ascertain, evaluate and
> report?"
>
> They reviewed the evidence collected by the FBI... and when they didn't feel
> that enough evidence was there - THEY ASKED THE FBI TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION.
Who was it that you named that approached Yarlborough to get his
statement?
> >they hired staff to travel about and gather more evidence
>
>
> Nope. You cannot provide the name of a *SINGLE* investigator. What you *can*
> provide are the names of more lawyers...
One and the same.
> >that is investigating
>
>
> You may call it such if you wish.
Mighty big of Ben to allow an accurate word to be used to describe
an action.
> The WC certainly used the word in so
> describing it.
Because they understood the task that LBJ assigned to them.
> But the Warren Commission was *NOT* tasked to investigate. They were tasked to
> "ascertain, evaluate and report"... it was the FBI's job to investigate.
They both investigated.
> This *IS* what you attempted to assert - that the WC was "tasked" with the
> investigation. They weren't - as I've so clearly shown.
You are beat, and beat bad on this issue.
> >it is investigating according to the dictionary
>
> Oh, perhaps you might make that argument.
He did, successfully.
> Funny thing, though, anytime the
> Warren Commission had a question, they didn't go investigate it, they ASKED THE
> FBI TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER.
Did someone claim that the WC didn`t use the FBI to procure
information?
> Funny way to "investigate", if you ask me. A *perfect* way to "ascertain,
> evaluate and report" though, isn't it?
Who visited Yarlborough to get his statement? You can bet this isn`t
the only legwork they did in connection to this case. I remember a
legal paper by one of the WC that mentioned some of the investigating
they did apart from the FBI. I`ll try to find it.
Ben Holmes
Snipping everything is rather cowardly, wouldn't you say?
In article <1137099794....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Papa Andy
says...
>
>all you are saying is that they did not investigate
No, I'm *quoting* the "tasking" of the Warren Commission - which does *NOT*
assert what you claimed for it.
I quoted Chief Warren's statement, Ford's question to Hoover, and Hoover's
response.
All of which make my point.
If you want to claim that the WC was "tasked" with the investigation - then
you're simply wrong about a historical fact. Learn to live with it.
>in a manner that
>satisfies the great Holmes (not Sherlock, not even Katie, just Ben)
>unless the dictionary is part of some bizarre plot you do not
>understand English
Why bother to spout nonsense when you refuse to *answer* the questions I posed?
I'm just going to point out to lurkers that you were too cowardly to respond to
the previous post without snipping the entire post.
>I clearly provided the definitions of investigate, evaluate and
>ascertain
>and showed they are more or less synonomous
>but you ignore any attempt at rational thought and fulminate strangley
>about balls and fear and other irrelevancies
Yep... you were forced to snip it, and can't respond to it. Why is that?
>A
Papa Andy
I do not snip
and even if I did all anyone has to do is read the thread to
see the context of your illiterate rambling
you do not respond to the facts you merely spout moronically
not only do you not understand the definitions of terms like
investigate
evaluate
ascertain
you also do not know the meaning of your 2 favorite words
liar
coward
you know very little if anything
unfortuantely you are one of those individual who if they were half as
smart as they thought they were would still be 10 times as smart as
anyone who had ever lived
since the odds on that are tens of billions to one chances are good you
are really a dimbulb
if anyone besides Ben is reading this
this is textbook Holmes drooling
he never responds to anything
just issues meaningless personal attacks and makes irrelevant side
comments
A
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1137092542....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Papa Andy
>> says...
>> >
>> >you have serious mental problems
>>
>>
>> Pointing out dishonesty is a "mental problem?"... well, perhaps so...
>> I'm sure that *your* mental health is not improved by me pointing out
>> how dishonest you are.
>
> It seems to be of benefit to my mental health to point out what a
>kook you are.
Good! I don't like to have a good reputation among the nuts.
>> >I don't need to quote the entire document
>>
>> Actually, just so lurkers aren't confused, it's merely the first sentence...
>> here's the relevant statement:
>>
>> "Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I
>> hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts
>> relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the
>> subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination."
>
> Yah, he used just about every word that means "investigate" but
>"investigate". The goal is to write a report and submit findings. LBJ
>told the WC to ivestigate in any manner they see fit to achieve this
>goal.
What was the Warren Commission "tasked" to do, Bud?
>> This is quite clearly the "tasking" for the Warren Commission. They were to
>> "ascertain, evaluate and report". Which is exactly the sort of job that
>> Senators and Congressmen are well suited for. They aren't normally tasked
>> with *investigating* murders... nor are most of them qualified to do such.
>
> They are mostly lawyers, Ben, they are familiar with the law, and
>the English language. They knew they were being told to launch an
>investigation into this matter without the word "investigate" being
>included in the first sentence.
Yep... it's normal for lawyers to actually investigate, right Bud???
And why bother arguing, it's *BEYOND DISPUTE* that LBJ gave the investigation to
the FBI.
>> LBJ was not a stupid man, despite my personal dislike for him, he was
>> clearly an intelligent man. It certainly makes sense to me to have
>> the FBI investigate, and an 'oversight' committee to work the political
>> angle... which is exactly what happened.
>
> You`re beat, Ben, and nobody gives a fuck what makes sense to you.
Who cares what you think? Idiots like you only provide a blackboard for me to
pass along the relevant evidence to lurkers...
>> Chief Warren certainly understood his tasking... he made it clear to
>> the other members in the Dec. 5th executive session where he stated:
>> "Now I think our job here is essentially one for the evaluation of
>> evidence as distinguished from being one of gathering evidence..."
>
> Yet, he didn`t say "entirely",
Neither did he say "blue moon".
>he said "essentially". And he also
>made it clear this was only a course of action to be followed
>initially, not guidelines to be followed throughout the investigation.
And yet, it *WAS* carried through to the very end.
>> Chief Warren was not a stupid man either... he was, for example, literate.
>
> Yet, you seem to have problems with the words he is using.
Feel free to cite or quote anytime, Bud.
>> Again, here's another example:
>>
>> Representative FORD. Under your authority from the President, the
>> authority which gave you the FBI, the responsibility to conduct this
>> investigation it is not an authority with a terminal point. It is an
>> authority that goes on indefinitely?
>> Mr. HOOVER. Very definitely so. The President wanted a full and thorough
>> investigation made of this matter, and we have tried to do so. ...
>>
>> Ford doesn't appear to be confused on the matter, nor does Hoover. Why are
>> *you* confused?
>
> It is you that are confused. The FBI`s investigation was being
>conducted before the WC was even thought of. It is *that*
>investigation that is being referred to.
"the responsibility to conduct THIS investigation"
Having problems with basic literacy, Bud??
>Obviously, the Warren
>Commission investigation *did* have a terminal point, it disbanded when
>it submitted it`s findings. Or do you think it is still in session?
Non Sequitor... nothing I said would imply any such thing...
>> >or sing the national anthem
>> >balanced on one foot while eating potato chips or anything else
>>
>>
>> Silly nonsense like this is merely that...
>>
>> Attempting to quote the tasking given to the Warren Commission to
>> support your statement, AND LEAVING IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, is hardly
>> a difficult thing to do for an honest person.
>>
>> Why couldn't you do it?
>
> He included the passage that proved his point.
Nope. He didn't. Nor does the EO 11130 "prove" his point at all.
>In case you missed it,
>it included this portion which just destroys your premise... ".. to
>make such further investigation as the
>Commission finds desirable...". It is part of LBJ`s instructions on how
>to proceed, even if it isn`t in the first sentence.
And your point is???
>> >not only were they tasked to investigate the assassination
>> >
>> >they did so
>>
>>
>> Then all you need to do is provide this "tasking".
>
> He did that.
Nope. That was the very first sentence, creating the WC with it's purpose that
was dishonestly left out.
>> As I've just *quoted* it above, it seems that you've got the short end
>> of the stick.
>
> Are you going to keep supplying quotes that do not support your
>premise?
Yep... "Bud is a raving idiot"
Doesn't support the historical truth whatsoever. (It does, however, reflect
current reality...)
>> In fact, just for any lurkers interested, here's the executive order that
>> created and tasked the Warren Commission:
>>
>> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A1_ExecOrder11130.pdf
>>
>> You won't get the facts from Papa Andy...
>
> The lurkers are being treated to a good example of how Ben operates,
>though.
Yep. I'm the only one arguing this point that has been supplying citations and
quotes... *complete* quotes, that is.
>> >they called witnesses
>>
>>
>> Yep... ones that had already been questioned by the FBI, and then the
>> WC merely put their testimony on the record.
>
> You can never be sure what a witness is going to say.
A real *investigator* doesn't know, naturally. The WC was not acting as an
investigator.
If you ever get around to reading much of the testimony, you'll discover that.
>> Very carefully 'coaching' them beforehand,
>> and bringing out *only* the information that they wanted on the record.
>
> You can never be sure what a witness is going to say.
Once again, Bud, this is *NOT* investigatory procedure.
>> Quite often even interupting an eyewitness if they started to get into
>> areas that the WC didn't want on the record. (Even to the point of going
>> *off* the record to discuss it!)
>
> You can never be sure what is said off the record.
Not investigatory procedure, is it, Bud?
>> This is a completely different procedure from "investigating"...
>
> No, it is common in this type of investigating to review what has
>been gathered by other sources.
When you're required to abandon all common sense, and merely lie for the fun of
it, you haven't said anything worth listening to, have you?
>Warren said he was going to start by
>looking at what the FBI had, and what the SS had, and what souces he
>might be unaware of had.
Yep... "ascertain, evaluation and report" *begins* with the 'ascertaining'...
>> >they reviewed evidence and reports
>>
>> That *IS* what they were tasked to do. Remember? "ascertain, evaluate and
>> report?"
>>
>> They reviewed the evidence collected by the FBI... and when they didn't
>> feel that enough evidence was there - THEY ASKED THE FBI TO GATHER MORE
>> INFORMATION.
>
> Who was it that you named that approached Yarlborough to get his
>statement?
Haven't the foggiest, and am not interested enough to look it up. My statement
above is absolutely accurate... and rebuts your silly notions.
>> >they hired staff to travel about and gather more evidence
>>
>>
>> Nope. You cannot provide the name of a *SINGLE* investigator. What
>> you *can* provide are the names of more lawyers...
>
> One and the same.
Lawyers are Investigators? News to the dictionary and common sense knowledge.
>> >that is investigating
>>
>>
>> You may call it such if you wish.
>
> Mighty big of Ben to allow an accurate word to be used to describe
>an action.
Yep... I'm feeling generous today.
>> The WC certainly used the word in so
>> describing it.
>
> Because they understood the task that LBJ assigned to them.
As both Warren and Ford make clear.
>> But the Warren Commission was *NOT* tasked to investigate. They were
>> tasked to "ascertain, evaluate and report"... it was the FBI's job to
>> investigate.
>
> They both investigated.
Untrue. Feel free, Bud, to cite any instance of WC "investigating".
>> This *IS* what you attempted to assert - that the WC was "tasked" with the
>> investigation. They weren't - as I've so clearly shown.
>
> You are beat, and beat bad on this issue.
And yet you still feel it necessary to try to spin the truth, don't you?
>> >it is investigating according to the dictionary
>>
>> Oh, perhaps you might make that argument.
>
> He did, successfully.
Nope. Unless you're using the word "successfully" to refer to the brain-dead,
such as yourself.
>> Funny thing, though, anytime the Warren Commission had a question, they
>> didn't go investigate it, they ASKED THE FBI TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER.
>
> Did someone claim that the WC didn`t use the FBI to procure
>information?
Yep. You and Papa Andy. You don't seem to grasp the concept and difference
between "ascertain, evaluate and report" and "investigate".
Different procedures would be one clue... were you interested in the truth.
>> Funny way to "investigate", if you ask me. A *perfect* way to "ascertain,
>> evaluate and report" though, isn't it?
>
> Who visited Yarlborough to get his statement?
Probably no-one. By the way, you should learn how to spell his name if you
intend to keep bringing him up.
>You can bet this isn`t
>the only legwork they did in connection to this case.
You haven't shown *this* one yet, Bud.
>I remember a
>legal paper by one of the WC that mentioned some of the investigating
>they did apart from the FBI. I`ll try to find it.
Bud, nothing you manage to find is going to change the historical *fact* that
the WC used the FBI to do the investigation.
When they had questions - THEY DIDN'T GO RESEARCH IT THEMSELVES, THEY ASKED THE
FBI.
No response, Bud???
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>you are wrong as you often are
>I do not snip
Then the previous message simply disappears into thin air...
>and even if I did all anyone has to do is read the thread to
>see the context of your illiterate rambling
>
>
>you do not respond to the facts you merely spout moronically
>not only do you not understand the definitions of terms like
>investigate
>evaluate
>ascertain
Why are you referencing "ascertain" and "evaluate"???
You were too dishonest to provide the citation that used those words...
>you also do not know the meaning of your 2 favorite words
>
>liar
>coward
>
>you know very little if anything
>
>unfortuantely you are one of those individual who if they were half as
>smart as they thought they were would still be 10 times as smart as
>anyone who had ever lived
>
>since the odds on that are tens of billions to one chances are good you
>are really a dimbulb
>
>if anyone besides Ben is reading this
>this is textbook Holmes drooling
Oh, there's always lurkers who read my posts, since I frequently provide
citations and quotes ... unlike wackos like yourself...
Papa Andy
so what does that make you?
A
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I did provide it (the quote you say I didn't provide)
>so what does that make you?
>
>A
Actually, you finally provided it *AFTER* I pointed out that you had dishonestly
snipped up the cite.
So by assuring everyone that you *DID* provide it, means that either you're
honestly reporting that you did AFTER I pointed out your dishonesty in failing
to report it - in which case you'd be correct - *OR* you're attempting to imply
that you supplied it right from the beginning - which merely makes you a liar.
In either case, it makes *ME* 100% accurate.
Papa Andy
in your reply to my post containing your precious quote (and by the way
honesty or lack of same had nothing to do with my not citing it
originally -- it remains unnecessary despite your prolonged whining)
you were still claiming that it wasn't there
you call snipping dishonest so we can add another word to the list of
terms you fail to comprehend
honest
dishonest
liar
truth
evaluate
investigate
ascertain
snip
keep highlighting your ignorance
it will be interesting to see how long the list of words you don't
understand gets
there are also concepts that escape you like the difference between LN
and CT but a person who has such trouble with the meaning of words can
be excused for lacking the ability to grasp ideas
A
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>try 0%
When you have to lie to make a point, you haven't made it, have you?
>in your reply to my post containing your precious quote (and by the way
>honesty or lack of same had nothing to do with my not citing it
>originally -- it remains unnecessary despite your prolonged whining)
>you were still claiming that it wasn't there
When you have to lie to make a point, you haven't made it, have you?
>you call snipping dishonest
Yep... it is. You're too cowardly to respond *directly* to my points. You
therefore snip them...
>so we can add another word to the list of
>terms you fail to comprehend
>
>honest
>dishonest
>liar
>truth
>evaluate
>investigate
>ascertain
>snip
>
>keep highlighting your ignorance
By your failure to be honest with the evidence, you illustrate your character.
>it will be interesting to see how long the list of words you don't
>understand gets
How silly!
>there are also concepts that escape you like the difference between LN
>and CT but a person who has such trouble with the meaning of words can
>be excused for lacking the ability to grasp ideas
If you use LNT'er tactics, don't be surprised to be called on it.
>A
Papa Andy
if you use LNT'er tactics, don't be surprised to be called on it.
this is way over the top even for Ben and also devoid of content
another lesson for Ben
cowardice is defined as Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain
dishonesty is defined as Lack of honesty or integrity; improbity
note that unlike evaluate and investigate these terms are not
synonomous yet if you read the above post which I would never dream of
wasting the bandwidth to replicate you can see that Ben thinks that
these terms are synonyms
as I said before the list of terms that Ben abuses the meaning of just
keeps on growing
A
Bud
> In article <1137102000....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Bud says...
> >
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article <1137092542....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Papa Andy
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >you have serious mental problems
> >>
> >>
> >> Pointing out dishonesty is a "mental problem?"... well, perhaps so...
> >> I'm sure that *your* mental health is not improved by me pointing out
> >> how dishonest you are.
> >
> > It seems to be of benefit to my mental health to point out what a
> >kook you are.
>
>
> Good! I don't like to have a good reputation among the nuts.
Too late, aeffects holds you in great esteem.
> >> >I don't need to quote the entire document
> >>
> >> Actually, just so lurkers aren't confused, it's merely the first sentence...
> >> here's the relevant statement:
> >>
> >> "Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I
> >> hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts
> >> relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the
> >> subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination."
> >
> > Yah, he used just about every word that means "investigate" but
> >"investigate". The goal is to write a report and submit findings. LBJ
> >told the WC to ivestigate in any manner they see fit to achieve this
> >goal.
>
>
> What was the Warren Commission "tasked" to do, Bud?
They were told to look into this matter, and returm findings. LBJ
did not dictate procedures, he empowered the WC to conduct it`s
investigation as it saw fit. It`s quite simple, if the FBI was decreed
by LBJ to be the investigative arm of the WC, that decree would need to
be put forth in orders. Can you produce such a thing?
> >> This is quite clearly the "tasking" for the Warren Commission. They were to
> >> "ascertain, evaluate and report". Which is exactly the sort of job that
> >> Senators and Congressmen are well suited for. They aren't normally tasked
> >> with *investigating* murders... nor are most of them qualified to do such.
> >
> > They are mostly lawyers, Ben, they are familiar with the law, and
> >the English language. They knew they were being told to launch an
> >investigation into this matter without the word "investigate" being
> >included in the first sentence.
>
>
> Yep... it's normal for lawyers to actually investigate, right Bud???
>
> And why bother arguing, it's *BEYOND DISPUTE* that LBJ gave the investigation to
> the FBI.
Then produce LBJ orders decreeing this. The division of power and
responsibility would need to outlined in some form *before* this task
was set upon, not inferred from quotes you don`t understand made during
the course of the investigation. The fact is that LBJ gave the WC the
liberty to proceed any way it wanted to, it was within the WC`s mandate
to use nothing from the FBI if it decided to.
> >> LBJ was not a stupid man, despite my personal dislike for him, he was
> >> clearly an intelligent man. It certainly makes sense to me to have
> >> the FBI investigate, and an 'oversight' committee to work the political
> >> angle... which is exactly what happened.
> >
> > You`re beat, Ben, and nobody gives a fuck what makes sense to you.
>
>
> Who cares what you think? Idiots like you only provide a blackboard for me to
> pass along the relevant evidence to lurkers...
<snicker> Could be that audience enjoys me paddling you.
> >> Chief Warren certainly understood his tasking... he made it clear to
> >> the other members in the Dec. 5th executive session where he stated:
> >> "Now I think our job here is essentially one for the evaluation of
> >> evidence as distinguished from being one of gathering evidence..."
> >
> > Yet, he didn`t say "entirely",
>
> Neither did he say "blue moon".
True. He used a word that didn`t confine it, but left it open for
change. A strict guideline was not being carved in stone. "This is how
we are going to proceed intially" is all this quote says. Yet you read
it in a completely different manner, and use that reading to support a
premise that it doesn`t. You claim it supposts you premise "precisely",
but your premise was not about how the WC was to proceed at the onset.
> >he said "essentially". And he also
> >made it clear this was only a course of action to be followed
> >initially, not guidelines to be followed throughout the investigation.
>
>
> And yet, it *WAS* carried through to the very end.
Where was it dictated by LBJ that the FBI would do all investigating
for the WC? The division of power and responsibilities must exist is
some form, right? Did they just "know"?
> >> Chief Warren was not a stupid man either... he was, for example, literate.
> >
> > Yet, you seem to have problems with the words he is using.
>
>
>
> Feel free to cite or quote anytime, Bud.
I can use the quotes you supply, and sho they don`t support the
premise you claim for them. Like the quote from Warren, which talks
about "A", how they were going to proceed intially, which you represent
as "B", a carved in stone set of guidelines to be followed throughout
the investigation.
> >> Again, here's another example:
> >>
> >> Representative FORD. Under your authority from the President, the
> >> authority which gave you the FBI, the responsibility to conduct this
> >> investigation it is not an authority with a terminal point. It is an
> >> authority that goes on indefinitely?
> >> Mr. HOOVER. Very definitely so. The President wanted a full and thorough
> >> investigation made of this matter, and we have tried to do so. ...
> >>
> >> Ford doesn't appear to be confused on the matter, nor does Hoover. Why are
> >> *you* confused?
> >
> > It is you that are confused. The FBI`s investigation was being
> >conducted before the WC was even thought of. It is *that*
> >investigation that is being referred to.
>
>
> "the responsibility to conduct THIS investigation"
>
> Having problems with basic literacy, Bud??
Yah, this investigation they were discussing, the FBI`s
investigation. But, lets use the literal translation. Ford saying
"this investigation" by your interpretation would be saying that his
questioning was also a function of "this investigation".
> >Obviously, the Warren
> >Commission investigation *did* have a terminal point, it disbanded when
> >it submitted it`s findings. Or do you think it is still in session?
>
>
> Non Sequitor... nothing I said would imply any such thing...
But it does support my contention about their being two separate
investigations. The one by the FBI was being conducted before the WC
was even formed, and was open ended. The WC`s investigation was to be
conducted until it could produce findings, it did have a terminal
point.
> >> >or sing the national anthem
> >> >balanced on one foot while eating potato chips or anything else
> >>
> >>
> >> Silly nonsense like this is merely that...
> >>
> >> Attempting to quote the tasking given to the Warren Commission to
> >> support your statement, AND LEAVING IN THE FIRST SENTENCE, is hardly
> >> a difficult thing to do for an honest person.
> >>
> >> Why couldn't you do it?
> >
> > He included the passage that proved his point.
>
>
> Nope. He didn't. Nor does the EO 11130 "prove" his point at all.
Sure it does. "...to make such further investigation as the
Commission feels desirable...". Investigate until it is satisfied.
> >In case you missed it,
> >it included this portion which just destroys your premise... ".. to
> >make such further investigation as the
> >Commission finds desirable...". It is part of LBJ`s instructions on how
> >to proceed, even if it isn`t in the first sentence.
>
>
> And your point is???
That the mandate of the WC was to investigate this matter. The
particulars were left to them. At no time was it dictated that the FBI
was to be the investigative arm of this process. It was within the WC`s
mandate to use staff investigators. They opted not to.
A football team might not use a two-point conversion during the course
of a football game. That doesn`t show that the two point conversion was
null and void for that game.
> >> >not only were they tasked to investigate the assassination
> >> >
> >> >they did so
> >>
> >>
> >> Then all you need to do is provide this "tasking".
> >
> > He did that.
>
>
> Nope. That was the very first sentence, creating the WC with it's purpose that
> was dishonestly left out.
Did it say anything about only looking at information supplied by
the FBI?
> >> As I've just *quoted* it above, it seems that you've got the short end
> >> of the stick.
> >
> > Are you going to keep supplying quotes that do not support your
> >premise?
>
>
> Yep... "Bud is a raving idiot"
That supports you premise as much as what Warren said.
> Doesn't support the historical truth whatsoever. (It does, however, reflect
> current reality...)
<snicker> A kook speaking on reality.
> >> In fact, just for any lurkers interested, here's the executive order that
> >> created and tasked the Warren Commission:
> >>
> >> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/pdf/WR_A1_ExecOrder11130.pdf
> >>
> >> You won't get the facts from Papa Andy...
> >
> > The lurkers are being treated to a good example of how Ben operates,
> >though.
>
>
> Yep. I'm the only one arguing this point that has been supplying citations and
> quotes... *complete* quotes, that is.
Then supply the quote where LBJ mandates that the FBI is to be the
investigative arm of the WC.
> >> >they called witnesses
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... ones that had already been questioned by the FBI, and then the
> >> WC merely put their testimony on the record.
> >
> > You can never be sure what a witness is going to say.
>
>
> A real *investigator* doesn't know, naturally. The WC was not acting as an
> investigator.
When asking a question to a witness as part of an investigation, you
never know what that person will reply, regardless of whether they have
been questioned or deposed previously.
> If you ever get around to reading much of the testimony, you'll discover that.
I occasionally read the testimony, to compare it to what you claim
it says, purely to see how you are mangling it.
> >> Very carefully 'coaching' them beforehand,
> >> and bringing out *only* the information that they wanted on the record.
> >
> > You can never be sure what a witness is going to say.
>
>
> Once again, Bud, this is *NOT* investigatory procedure.
Asking questions is not part of the investigatory proceedure? Did
the FBI have the power to subpoena witnesses, or punish for lying under
oath?
> >> Quite often even interupting an eyewitness if they started to get into
> >> areas that the WC didn't want on the record. (Even to the point of going
> >> *off* the record to discuss it!)
> >
> > You can never be sure what is said off the record.
>
>
> Not investigatory procedure, is it, Bud?
Don`t know, generally off the record remarks aren`t recorded in the
record.
> >> This is a completely different procedure from "investigating"...
> >
> > No, it is common in this type of investigating to review what has
> >been gathered by other sources.
>
>
> When you're required to abandon all common sense, and merely lie for the fun of
> it, you haven't said anything worth listening to, have you?
In what way do you feel that addresses what I just said? Do you
suppose the 9-11 investigation, or the Oklahoma investigation started
with investigators ignoring all information supplied by various
agencies, and only looked at evidence they had developed first hand?
> >Warren said he was going to start by
> >looking at what the FBI had, and what the SS had, and what souces he
> >might be unaware of had.
>
>
> Yep... "ascertain, evaluation and report" *begins* with the 'ascertaining'...
Yah, and a necessary step in investigation is to look at
information, in this case what the FBI, the Secret Service and whoever
else might have previously developed.
>
>
> >> >they reviewed evidence and reports
> >>
> >> That *IS* what they were tasked to do. Remember? "ascertain, evaluate and
> >> report?"
> >>
> >> They reviewed the evidence collected by the FBI... and when they didn't
> >> feel that enough evidence was there - THEY ASKED THE FBI TO GATHER MORE
> >> INFORMATION.
> >
> > Who was it that you named that approached Yarlborough to get his
> >statement?
>
>
> Haven't the foggiest, and am not interested enough to look it up. My statement
> above is absolutely accurate... and rebuts your silly notions.
You recently posted a passage that read in part "Senator Ralph
Yarborough was shocked at the treatment he recieved from the Warren
Commission staff." How is he having a confrontation with the WC staff
if the WC did no legwork, and relied entirely on the FBI acting as
intermediates?
> >> >they hired staff to travel about and gather more evidence
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope. You cannot provide the name of a *SINGLE* investigator. What
> >> you *can* provide are the names of more lawyers...
> >
> > One and the same.
>
>
> Lawyers are Investigators? News to the dictionary and common sense knowledge.
Are you claiming that the terms are mutally exclusive? I`m sure
there are lawyers that hangglide, they are not excluded by the title of
their profession. In this case, many of the people who were
investigating this matter also happened to be lawyers (well, not just
happened, many politicians and high government figures are also
lawyers).
> >> >that is investigating
> >>
> >>
> >> You may call it such if you wish.
> >
> > Mighty big of Ben to allow an accurate word to be used to describe
> >an action.
>
>
> Yep... I'm feeling generous today.
Fortunately, the meanings of words don`t change with your moods.
> >> The WC certainly used the word in so
> >> describing it.
> >
> > Because they understood the task that LBJ assigned to them.
>
>
> As both Warren and Ford make clear.
Then you can quote either outlining solid guidelines they were to
follow throughout this endeavor, and also outlining the role and
responsibility of the FBI as the investigating agency for that effort.
> >> But the Warren Commission was *NOT* tasked to investigate. They were
> >> tasked to "ascertain, evaluate and report"... it was the FBI's job to
> >> investigate.
> >
> > They both investigated.
>
>
> Untrue. Feel free, Bud, to cite any instance of WC "investigating".
They called and questioned witnesses. Is it your claim that I can
find no question posed by a member of the WC to a witness that you
can`t find being previously asked to that witness by the FBI?
> >> This *IS* what you attempted to assert - that the WC was "tasked" with the
> >> investigation. They weren't - as I've so clearly shown.
> >
> > You are beat, and beat bad on this issue.
>
>
> And yet you still feel it necessary to try to spin the truth, don't you?
You mean untangle the truth from your twisting of it.
> >> >it is investigating according to the dictionary
> >>
> >> Oh, perhaps you might make that argument.
> >
> > He did, successfully.
>
>
> Nope. Unless you're using the word "successfully" to refer to the brain-dead,
> such as yourself.
He sucessfully made his argument, whether you know it or not.
> >> Funny thing, though, anytime the Warren Commission had a question, they
> >> didn't go investigate it, they ASKED THE FBI TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER.
> >
> > Did someone claim that the WC didn`t use the FBI to procure
> >information?
>
>
> Yep. You and Papa Andy. You don't seem to grasp the concept and difference
> between "ascertain, evaluate and report" and "investigate".
Look up "synonymous". And apparently, the esteemed members of the WC
didn`t understand either, for they claimed they investigated.
> Different procedures would be one clue... were you interested in the truth.
You would say Fritz was not an investigator of this matter, if he
didn`t physically leave the stationhouse and gather information
personally?
> >> Funny way to "investigate", if you ask me. A *perfect* way to "ascertain,
> >> evaluate and report" though, isn't it?
> >
> > Who visited Yarlborough to get his statement?
>
> Probably no-one. By the way, you should learn how to spell his name if you
> intend to keep bringing him up.
Yah, had a hell of time googling him with that spelling.
> >You can bet this isn`t
> >the only legwork they did in connection to this case.
>
>
> You haven't shown *this* one yet, Bud.
You did, I only referred to it.
> >I remember a
> >legal paper by one of the WC that mentioned some of the investigating
> >they did apart from the FBI. I`ll try to find it.
>
>
> Bud, nothing you manage to find is going to change the historical *fact* that
> the WC used the FBI to do the investigation.
Then why do the instructions given to the WC say for them to
investigate in a manner they see fit, and not for them to use the FBI
to investigate in a manner they see fit?
> When they had questions - THEY DIDN'T GO RESEARCH IT THEMSELVES, THEY ASKED THE
> FBI.
No doubt they used information developed by the FBI, as well as
information developed by other agencies. Where was it decreed and
dictated by LBJ that this was to be the roles? What in the WC`s mandate
precludes them from procuring private investigators to gather
information?
Who allowed the WC to proceed as they say fit.
> Disagree with Chief Warren, who asserted that
> >> he understood that tasking.
No, he told how he thought they should proceed from "the onset".
> Disagree with Hoover, who made it perfectly
> >> plain who was in charge of the investigation.
No doubt he was in charge of the FBI`s investigation.
> Disagree with the actual
> >> *facts* - the WC had no 'investigators' on it's staff,
They were all acting as investigators into this matter.
> and when questions
> >> arose, THEY ASKED THE FBI TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER.
They also turned to other agencies, as well as state and local
officials.
> >>
> >> True "investigators" would simply go out in the field and *investigate*.
Then Fritz wasn`t an investigator of this crime if he never left the
station, right?
> >> The purpose of the WC was to get things "on the record"... they certainly
> >> couldn't use CD1, now, could they?
>
> No response, Bud???
Then you can point to where LBJ tasks the WC merely to "get things
on the record".