Attention Jean!

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 24, 2012, 12:53:38 PM5/24/12

to

It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to weigh in on
this issue as well.

I've been unable to find even a single LNT'er who will admit that Bugliosi lied
on
this issue.

What's your opinion?

**************************************************************************
"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)

Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
this anywhere?

What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
**************************************************************************

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

timstter

unread,

May 24, 2012, 5:54:01 PM5/24/12

to

A liar like Ben Holmes talks about honesty!

It is to laugh!

Mirthful Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

May 24, 2012, 6:54:53 PM5/24/12

to

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

Jean

unread,

May 24, 2012, 10:39:22 PM5/24/12

to jjdavi...@yahoo.com

On May 24, 11:53 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to weigh in on
> this issue as well.
>
> I've been unable to find even a single LNT'er who will admit that Bugliosi lied
> on
> this issue.
>
> What's your opinion?

I almost never call anyone a liar, because I can't read
minds. Bugliosi was wrong about this, imo, but look at the context.
Immediately after this quote he pointed out that neither Carrico nor
any other doctors in the ER were pathologists, "much less forensic
pathologists," and therefore not qualified to determine the direction
of the bullet. He gave other reasons for believing this was an exit
wound.

Anyone who writes a 1500-page book is going to make errors.
Is this the worst mistake CTs have found in Bugliosi's book?

Jean

Ken McDonald

unread,

May 24, 2012, 10:45:18 PM5/24/12

to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:116321c1-298b-46ed...@pa10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

Yellow Pants is a conspiracy theorist? What's his theory? All he can do is
regurgitate what he reads in kooky books and steal snippets of posts from
a.a.jfk so he can call them lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, and cowardly.
Yellow Pants is the one thats a lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, cowardly
simple minded stupid fuck. Show me something original that Yellow Pants has
come up with.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7165 (20120524) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Jason Burke

unread,

May 24, 2012, 10:49:52 PM5/24/12

to

The ability to be the stupidest fuck on planet earth?

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 24, 2012, 11:41:33 PM5/24/12

to

In article <9eb6602a-3395-47a5...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 24, 11:53=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to weigh=

> in on
>> this issue as well.
>>
>> I've been unable to find even a single LNT'er who will admit that Bugliosi
>> lied on this issue.
>>
>> What's your opinion?
>
> I almost never call anyone a liar, because I can't read
>minds.

And yet, you've jumped into a debate where the *SOLE* topic is whether he told
lies or not.

You know, of course, if Mark Lane isn't lying, then your entire edifice is shown
to be built on sand, not a firm foundation.

>Bugliosi was wrong about this, imo, but look at the context.

What "context" can change an accurate description of the original bullet wound
into a description totally at odds with the real description?

>Immediately after this quote he pointed out that neither Carrico nor
>any other doctors in the ER were pathologists, "much less forensic
>pathologists," and therefore not qualified to determine the direction
>of the bullet. He gave other reasons for believing this was an exit
>wound.

The topic, Jean, has *NOTHING* to do with the direction of the bullet. While
certainly Bugliosi used this to defend the WCR's theory on the direction of the
bullet, the REAL topic is how Bugliosi made up evidence to support his theory.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the description of that bullet wound... which he
simply lied about.

Can you provide *ANY* credible scenario under which this is *NOT* a lie on his
part?

After all, I suspect that you *ARE* willing to label people such as Mark Lane
liars on far less evidence.

> Anyone who writes a 1500-page book is going to make errors.
>Is this the worst mistake CTs have found in Bugliosi's book?

You believe this to be an error?

Can you defend that assertion?

>Jean
>
>
>
>>
>> **************************************************************************
>> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an

>> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtu=
>ally a
>> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usua=

>lly
>> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>

>> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually =

Jean

unread,

May 25, 2012, 1:35:49 PM5/25/12

to jjdavi...@yahoo.com

On May 24, 10:41 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <9eb6602a-3395-47a5-9abb-97e25a3aa...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

> Jean says...
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 11:53=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to weigh=
> > in on
> >> this issue as well.
>
> >> I've been unable to find even a single LNT'er who will admit that Bugliosi
> >> lied on this issue.
>
> >> What's your opinion?
>
> > I almost never call anyone a liar, because I can't read
> >minds.
>
> And yet, you've jumped into a debate where the *SOLE* topic is whether he told
> lies or not.
>
> You know, of course, if Mark Lane isn't lying, then your entire edifice is shown
> to be built on sand, not a firm foundation.

I don't pretend to know what is in Lane's mind. I do
know that I could point out Lane's distortions all day long and never
run out of examples. Years ago, Governor Rockefeller called Lane's
allegations about a fellow politician "ruthlessly misleading." That's
Lane's methodology in a nutshell, in my opinion. But I can't exclude
the possibility that Lane actually believes what he's saying.

>
> >Bugliosi was wrong about this, imo, but look at the context.
>
> What "context" can change an accurate description of the original bullet wound
> into a description totally at odds with the real description?

That's not what I said. Bugiosi's use of "ragged" was
wrong, period. The context simply shows that his verdict on the
throat wound was based on other things, as it should've been.

>
> >Immediately after this quote he pointed out that neither Carrico nor
> >any other doctors in the ER were pathologists, "much less forensic
> >pathologists," and therefore not qualified to determine the direction
> >of the bullet. He gave other reasons for believing this was an exit
> >wound.
>
> The topic, Jean, has *NOTHING* to do with the direction of the bullet. While
> certainly Bugliosi used this to defend the WCR's theory on the direction of the
> bullet, the REAL topic is how Bugliosi made up evidence to support his theory.
>
> It has EVERYTHING to do with the description of that bullet wound... which he
> simply lied about.

Do people never make dumb mistakes in your world? Do they
only LIE? To prove a lie you need to show what was going on in his
mind. How are you going to do that?

>
> Can you provide *ANY* credible scenario under which this is *NOT* a lie on his
> part?

Bugliosi didn't simply "make up" the word -- Carrico used
"ragged" to describe a tear in the trachea, as I recall. I don't know
why Burliosi got this wrong, but since he doesn't use a computer, he
probably had oodles of printed or typed notes to work with. Maybe he
misread something, who knows? If this is the only goof you've found
in his book, good for him! Tell me why you think he picked this one
detail to lie about, of all things?

>
> After all, I suspect that you *ARE* willing to label people such as Mark Lane
> liars on far less evidence.
>
> > Anyone who writes a 1500-page book is going to make errors.
> >Is this the worst mistake CTs have found in Bugliosi's book?
>
> You believe this to be an error?
>
> Can you defend that assertion?

Answer MY question, Ben. Is this the worst "lie" CTs
have found in his 1500-page book?

Jean

aeffects

unread,

May 25, 2012, 2:16:58 PM5/25/12

to

On May 24, 7:49 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/24/2012 7:45 PM, Ken McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "David Von Pein"<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in message

ahh, the three dumb turds all gathered to watch Jean do her gig.....
just keep out of the way little guys, adults are at work. LMFAO!

aeffects

unread,

May 25, 2012, 2:22:02 PM5/25/12

to

On May 24, 7:45 pm, "Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoVnEaJlFd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:116321c1-298b-46ed...@pa10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
>
> Yellow Pants is a conspiracy theorist? What's his theory? All he can do is
> regurgitate what he reads in kooky books and steal snippets of posts from
> a.a.jfk so he can call them lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, and cowardly.
> Yellow Pants is the one thats a lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, cowardly
> simple minded stupid fuck. Show me something original that Yellow Pants has
> come up with.

wow, I'm amazed Jean needs your help here, poition is THAT weak, eh?
However, it is nice to know .john allowed you to post again
though.... did you get a new pair of kneepads, hon?

Jason Burke

unread,

May 25, 2012, 3:00:22 PM5/25/12

to

Still got nothing except that burning sensation and worms in your ass, I
see.

aeffects

unread,

May 25, 2012, 5:56:13 PM5/25/12

to

On May 24, 3:28 pm, "News" <a...@att.net> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6de170c3-3b90-46f1...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> ---
>
> But not a very good commentator, unless mythical information is
> considered good.
>
> "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate,
> contrived, and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive, and
> unrealistic."
> --John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

even in death he haunts lone nuts...

aeffects

unread,

May 25, 2012, 5:55:00 PM5/25/12

to

sitdown troll, Jean is at bat... Does Jean need your help?

David Von Pein

unread,

May 25, 2012, 8:03:14 PM5/25/12

to

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

Re: "Carrico" and "ragged":

My explanation that I laid out in the above post in July 2011 is very
likely the correct and most reasonable explanation for Mr. Bugliosi's
"ragged" gaffe.

Excerpts from that post:

"My opinion is that Vince has somehow confused himself into
thinking that the "ragged" quotes that definitely did come from both
Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry are quotes that he feels confident enough to
utilize in his book to explain the way the wound in JFK's throat (on
the whole) looked to each of those doctors (Carrico and Perry).

"When, in fact, Vince is incorrect when he tries to merge the
two wounds. Because he surely also knows (or he should know by reading
the testimony of both Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry) that those doctors
were referring to two DIFFERENT wounds in the President's throat when
they testified and when the Parkland Hospital report was written.

[...]

"But I also truly believe that these errors are not intentional
"lies". Given the fact that there was, indeed, a wound associated with
President Kennedy's neck/throat injury that was described by more than
one doctor as being "ragged" in nature, Bugliosi's utilization of the
word "ragged" could very well be--I'm sorry to say--a bit of a "senior
moment" on the part of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi.

[...]

"I'm not excusing any "ragged" errors that Vince Bugliosi has
made in his JFK book, I'm merely attempting to provide a POSSIBLE
explanation for why those errors appear on Pages 207 and 413 of
"Reclaiming History".

"And I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever
was) an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing
to print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT
LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr.
Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from
that sort of devious cloth. If certain conspiracy theorists want to
disagree with my last comment, so be it. But I'll always stand by what
I just said." -- DVP; 7/14/11

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 25, 2012, 10:14:11 PM5/25/12

to

In article <6d6d632e-4eae-431b...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 24, 10:41=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <9eb6602a-3395-47a5-9abb-97e25a3aa...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 11:53=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to we=
>igh=3D

>> > in on
>> >> this issue as well.
>>

>> >> I've been unable to find even a single LNT'er who will admit that Bugl=

>iosi
>> >> lied on this issue.
>>
>> >> What's your opinion?
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I almost never call anyone a liar, because I can't read
>> >minds.
>>
>> And yet, you've jumped into a debate where the *SOLE* topic is whether he=

> told
>> lies or not.
>>
>> You know, of course, if Mark Lane isn't lying, then your entire edifice
>> is shown to be built on sand, not a firm foundation.
>
> I don't pretend to know what is in Lane's mind.

That isn't the topic, Jean.

Was he *CORRECTLY* listing the evidence in this case?

>I do
>know that I could point out Lane's distortions all day long and never
>run out of examples.

You know, that's *PRECISELY* why I started this series... just to give all the
Warren Commission believers the opportunity to go ahead and give this
information.

It's been INCREDIBLY difficult to get examples... and then refuting them is
child's play.

So why not start a series titled "Mark Lane's Distortions" - and perhaps you'll
convince some people... just as my series is demolishing your stance.

>Years ago, Governor Rockefeller called Lane's
>allegations about a fellow politician "ruthlessly misleading." That's
>Lane's methodology in a nutshell, in my opinion. But I can't exclude
>the possibility that Lane actually believes what he's saying.

This is really simple... just QUOTE what he stated, then cite the actual
evidence.

Not difficult at all Jean.

Why can't anyone do it?

Why do you suppose that these nebulous and unsupported "opinions", such as
you're expressing, are all most of us ever see about Mark Lane?

>> >Bugliosi was wrong about this, imo, but look at the context.
>>
>> What "context" can change an accurate description of the original bullet
>> wound into a description totally at odds with the real description?
>
> That's not what I said. Bugiosi's use of "ragged" was
>wrong, period.

If a lie was the best argument that Bugliosi could come up with to support the
idea that the throat wound was *NOT* medical evidence of a frontal shooter, what
are we to think, Jean?

You refuse to even *label* it a lie, so your theory must be that after over 20
years of research, he was too stupid or ignorant of the evidence to correctly
utilize it.

You don't make a "mistake" like this - you're asking everyone to believe
something that's just a tad incredible.

>The context simply shows that his verdict on the
>throat wound was based on other things, as it should've been.

No Jean... he quite definitely asserted that the appearance of that wound
supported his theory that it was an exit wound.

As I'm sure you're aware of, the only *other* thing he could use to label it an
exit wound is speculation.

NO MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THAT WOUND WAS EVER MADE. Nor was transit established
by medical evidence.

Only by speculation - almost certainly occurring *AFTER* the autopsy was already
over.

So to be able to give direct PHYSICAL evidence, and I'm sure Jean, that you'll
agree that wound *appearance* is physical evidence, that the wound was an exit
wound was quite seductive to Bugliosi's instincts as a prosecutor.

>> >Immediately after this quote he pointed out that neither Carrico nor
>> >any other doctors in the ER were pathologists, "much less forensic
>> >pathologists," and therefore not qualified to determine the direction

>> >of the bullet. =A0He gave other reasons for believing this was an exit

>> >wound.
>>
>> The topic, Jean, has *NOTHING* to do with the direction of the bullet.
>> While certainly Bugliosi used this to defend the WCR's theory on the
>> direction of the bullet, the REAL topic is how Bugliosi made up evidence
>> to support his theory.
>>
>> It has EVERYTHING to do with the description of that bullet wound...
>> which he simply lied about.
>
> Do people never make dumb mistakes in your world?

Sorry Jean... you're trying to make an argument that isn't credible.

It's *NOT CREDIBLE* that Bugliosi was unaware of the controversy surrounding
this wound, indeed, ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE he discusses the Parkland press
conference... so he *KNOWS* that the wound gave every appearance of being an
entry wound.

>Do they
>only LIE?

Feel free to make your best argument Jean... you're failing so far.

>To prove a lie you need to show what was going on in his
>mind. How are you going to do that?

No Jean... I reject that. I know that it's symptomatic on the LNT'ers side to
make this claim - but it's always ignored when speaking of Mark Lane or Douglas
Horne, or ... you name the CT'er...

The alternative is to believe that Bugliosi was either incredibly stupid
(believing that the trachea description was identical to the description of the
bullet wound in JFK's throat), or that he was incredibly ignorant of the medical
evidence in this case.

THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES - *CREDIBLE* ALTERNATIVES, Jean. But if you
believe that there are, GIVE US YOUR BEST ARGUMENT!

No-one has seen it yet, I hope.

>> Can you provide *ANY* credible scenario under which this is *NOT* a lie
>> on his part?
>
> Bugliosi didn't simply "make up" the word -- Carrico used
>"ragged" to describe a tear in the trachea, as I recall.

Then you must be as ignorant as Bugliosi is on the medical evidence.

I don't *have* to recall, I know it's a fact, and can locate relevant quotes
quite quickly.

But only a moron would confuse the trachea with the bullet wound in the skin.

And only a complete liar would try to argue that the damage reported in the
trachea gives evidence of the *direction* of the bullet.

>I don't know
>why Burliosi got this wrong, but since he doesn't use a computer, he
>probably had oodles of printed or typed notes to work with. Maybe he
>misread something, who knows? If this is the only goof you've found
>in his book, good for him!

Oh, I'm sure you know better...

>Tell me why you think he picked this one
>detail to lie about, of all things?

No Jean, I reject your implied claim that this is the only item that Bugliosi
lied about.

... and I'm quite sure you well understand the implications here, Jean.

This is by *FAR* the strongest medical evidence for a frontal shooter.

All the rest of the medical evidence for a frontal shooter can be argued or
explained away.

This is far more difficult to do.

>> After all, I suspect that you *ARE* willing to label people such as Mark =

>Lane
>> liars on far less evidence.
>>
>> > Anyone who writes a 1500-page book is going to make errors.
>> >Is this the worst mistake CTs have found in Bugliosi's book?
>>
>> You believe this to be an error?
>>
>> Can you defend that assertion?
>
> Answer MY question, Ben. Is this the worst "lie" CTs
>have found in his 1500-page book?

It is, in my opinion, the one lie that is so obvious, that it serves as a litmus
test to determine the honesty of people who try to defend it.

You've failed the test Jean, and I'm sure that *YOU* understand that there's no
credible explanation that people will believe.

Feel free to argue that Bugliosi didn't understand the medical evidence... that
would be a credible argument.

Feel free to argue that Bugliosi was simply too stupid to figure out the
difference between the trachea and the original bullet wound... that would be a
credible argument.

But to argue that someone spent over 20 years studying this case, KNEW ABOUT THE
PROBLEMS THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION HAD WITH EARLY REPORTS THAT THIS WAS AN
ENTRY WOUND - probably knew the arguments that the wound was 'buttressed' by the
collar, certainly knew that the WC had commissioned studies to demonstrate that
entry wounds can look like exit wounds (WCR 91), and perhaps even knew of the
claim that JFK had "turned around" to get shot in the throat, yet we must
believe that he made an innocent error in describing this wound in contradiction
to all his sources to support his theory that it was an exit wound.

Sorry Jean... I've not practiced enough in believing impossible things...

I'm just going to accept that he lied.

By the way, in such an enormous tome, surely you can find "errors" that benefit
the CT side, right?

If errors are to be found, they would be equally split in their results, right?

>Jean
>
>> >Jean
>>
>> >> **********************************************************************=
>****
>> >> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was=
> an
>> >> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," vi=
>rtu=3D
>> >ally a
>> >> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is u=
>sua=3D

>> >lly
>> >> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>

>> >> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actual=
>ly =3D

>> >*say*
>> >> this anywhere?
>>
>> >> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?

>> >> **********************************************************************=

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 25, 2012, 10:22:04 PM5/25/12

to

In article <87a3f174-1e96-4965...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On May 24, 7:49=A0pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2012 7:45 PM, Ken McDonald wrote:
>>

>> > "David Von Pein"<davevonp...@aol.com> =A0wrote in message
>> >news:116321c1-298b-46ed...@pa10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com.=
>..
>>
>> >>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
>>
>> > Yellow Pants is a conspiracy theorist? What's his theory? All he can do=
> is
>> > regurgitate what he reads in kooky books and steal snippets of posts fr=
>om
>> > a.a.jfk so he can call them lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, =A0and co=
>wardly.
>> > Yellow Pants is the one thats a lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, cowar=
>dly
>> > simple minded stupid fuck. Show me something original that Yellow Pants=
> has
>> > come up with.

>>
>>
>> The ability to be the stupidest fuck on planet earth?
>
>ahh, the three dumb turds all gathered to watch Jean do her gig.....
>just keep out of the way little guys, adults are at work. LMFAO!

Oh my! It looks like DVP has posted a desperate apologia for Bugliosi's lie.

I guess I'll take some time this Memorial day weekend to rip it to shreds...

Perhaps Jean will still be around to read it...

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 25, 2012, 10:23:23 PM5/25/12

to

In article <26a01d21-eec5-4fc1...@oo8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 24, 7:45=A0pm, "Ken McDonald" <kRmEcMdOoVnEaJlFd...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:116321c1-298b=
>-46ed-882c-...@pa10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
>>
>> Yellow Pants is a conspiracy theorist? What's his theory? All he can do i=

>s
>> regurgitate what he reads in kooky books and steal snippets of posts from

>> a.a.jfk so he can call them lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, =A0and cowa=
>rdly.
>> Yellow Pants is the one thats a lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, cowardl=
>y
>> simple minded stupid fuck. Show me something original that Yellow Pants h=

>as
>> come up with.
>
>wow, I'm amazed Jean needs your help here, poition is THAT weak, eh?
>However, it is nice to know .john allowed you to post again
>though.... did you get a new pair of kneepads, hon?

I guess the kook is still trying out for the position of President of my fan
club.

I'll expect daily posts such as my past President provided if this new kook
wants the job.

David Von Pein

unread,

May 25, 2012, 10:58:15 PM5/25/12

to

BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "My guess is that DVP refuses to even *try* to quote Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said... and so recognizes the lie." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course I can never quote Carrico (or Perry) saying what Bugliosi
has them saying about the outer-skin throat wound on Pages 207 and 413
of "Reclaiming History". And that's because Bugliosi IS wrong--the
doctors never, ever said "ragged" when it comes to that particular
outer-skin throat wound. I admit that. Bugliosi's dead wrong on that
issue. Without question.

But "wrong" does not always equal "lie", Pussy Ben. Not ALWAYS. And in
VB's case, it does not, IMO, equal a "lie" (i.e., it does not equal a
statement that is designed to deliberately mislead and deceive the
reader).

Bugliosi, for some reason unknown to me, has it in his head that ALL
of the doctors' "ragged" statements somehow equate to JFK's outer-skin
throat wound, which is definitely incorrect. So, I guess I'll have to
choose one of the two options below to explain this incorrect
assumption by Mr. Bugliosi:

1.) VB is totally ignorant of the facts re the "ragged" testimony
provided by BOTH Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico.

or

2.) VB had a senior/senile moment when he wrote what he wrote on Pages
207 and 413.

The third option -- Bugliosi is a rotten liar -- is not even on the
radar screen for me. And I explained the reasons why in an earlier
post.

>>> "But he [DVP] can't admit that it's a lie. Is it the best he can do to imply that it was a "Senior moment?" " <<<

Yep. That's the best I can do under these circumstances, Mr. Pussy.
Because, as stated in a recent post above this one, to believe that
Vince Bugliosi would even BEGIN to want to deliberately tell a bunch
of willful lies in his JFK book is to believe that Mr. Bugliosi has
the I.Q. of an earthworm. And I know VB's I.Q. is a little higher than
that.

DVP
July 15, 2011 [original below]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/300e41dc3bea0b0d

David Von Pein

unread,

May 25, 2012, 10:56:38 PM5/25/12

to

>>> "Oh my! It looks like DVP has posted a desperate apologia for Bugliosi's lie." <<<

Oh good. It looks like Holmes is going to pretend he's never seen my
"ragged" post before--even though I wrote it almost a year ago, in
July 2011.

And with a lapdog like Healy always lurking in the background here at
The Asylum, I know full well Holmes has seen this 2011 post:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/274b7247aa2c46a9

timstter

unread,

May 26, 2012, 12:46:43 AM5/26/12

to

On May 25, 8:28 am, "News" <a...@att.net> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "timstter" <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6de170c3-3b90-46f1...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> ---
>
> But not a very good commentator, unless mythical information is
> considered good.
>
> "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate,
> contrived, and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive, and
> unrealistic."
> --John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

WTF would YOU know about anything, Newsboy?

You are little more than a complete CLOWN, in my view.

Mark Lane is a documented LIAR, simple as that.

Case CLOSED!

Informative Regards,

aeffects

unread,

May 26, 2012, 3:54:09 AM5/26/12

to

On May 25, 7:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> >>> "My guess is that DVP refuses to even *try* to quote Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said... and so recognizes the lie." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

...

> I admit that. Bugliosi's dead wrong on that
> issue. Without question.
>

...

why wasn't it corrected then? and don't tell us Dale *look at my EMMY*
Myers wrote it!

aeffects

unread,

May 26, 2012, 4:00:19 AM5/26/12

to

On May 25, 7:14 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <6d6d632e-4eae-431b-a3b9-ec7553fb2...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

ouch, Ouch, OUCH, O-U-C-H!

David Von Pein

unread,

May 26, 2012, 4:04:10 AM5/26/12

to

How is it supposed to get corrected after the book was already printed?

Bud

unread,

May 26, 2012, 5:19:23 AM5/26/12

to

On May 25, 10:22 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <87a3f174-1e96-4965-83e8-04c475d82...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 7:49=A0pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2012 7:45 PM, Ken McDonald wrote:
>
> >> > "David Von Pein"<davevonp...@aol.com> =A0wrote in message
> >> >news:116321c1-298b-46ed...@pa10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com.=
> >..
>
> >> >>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
>
> >> > Yellow Pants is a conspiracy theorist? What's his theory? All he can do=
> > is
> >> > regurgitate what he reads in kooky books and steal snippets of posts fr=
> >om
> >> > a.a.jfk so he can call them lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, =A0and co=
> >wardly.
> >> > Yellow Pants is the one thats a lying, gutless, kooky, dishonest, cowar=
> >dly
> >> > simple minded stupid fuck. Show me something original that Yellow Pants=
> > has
> >> > come up with.
>
> >> The ability to be the stupidest fuck on planet earth?
>
> >ahh, the three dumb turds all gathered to watch Jean do her gig.....
> >just keep out of the way little guys, adults are at work. LMFAO!
>
> Oh my! It looks like DVP has posted a desperate apologia for Bugliosi's lie.

<snicker> When Lane writes something that isn`t true it doesn`t
matter to "Apples and Oranges Benny".

Bud

unread,

May 26, 2012, 6:26:49 AM5/26/12

to

On May 25, 10:14 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <6d6d632e-4eae-431b-a3b9-ec7553fb2...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

> Jean says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 10:41=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <9eb6602a-3395-47a5-9abb-97e25a3aa...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Jean says...
>
> >> >On May 24, 11:53=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> >> It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to we=
> >igh=3D
> >> > in on
> >> >> this issue as well.
>
> >> >> I've been unable to find even a single LNT'er who will admit that Bugl=
> >iosi
> >> >> lied on this issue.
>
> >> >> What's your opinion?
>
> >> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I almost never call anyone a liar, because I can't read
> >> >minds.
>
> >> And yet, you've jumped into a debate where the *SOLE* topic is whether he=
> > told
> >> lies or not.
>
> >> You know, of course, if Mark Lane isn't lying, then your entire edifice
> >> is shown to be built on sand, not a firm foundation.
>
> > I don't pretend to know what is in Lane's mind.
>
> That isn't the topic, Jean.
>
> Was he *CORRECTLY* listing the evidence in this case?

It had been proven he wasn`t CORRECT for a week now.

> >I do
> >know that I could point out Lane's distortions all day long and never
> >run out of examples.
>
> You know, that's *PRECISELY* why I started this series... just to give all the
> Warren Commission believers the opportunity to go ahead and give this
> information.
>
> It's been INCREDIBLY difficult to get examples...

Basically because Lane doesn`t say anything most of the time. He is
a master of putting together words that seem to mean something but on
examination are meaningless. Ben does the same thing.

>and then refuting them is
> child's play.

And was.

> So why not start a series titled "Mark Lane's Distortions" - and perhaps you'll
> convince some people... just as my series is demolishing your stance.
>
> >Years ago, Governor Rockefeller called Lane's
> >allegations about a fellow politician "ruthlessly misleading." That's
> >Lane's methodology in a nutshell, in my opinion. But I can't exclude
> >the possibility that Lane actually believes what he's saying.
>
> This is really simple... just QUOTE what he stated, then cite the actual
> evidence.
>
> Not difficult at all Jean.
>
> Why can't anyone do it?

It was done, idiot. You claimed it was the result of deficiencies on
the part of the people pointing out Lane`s lies. You are retarded, and
if Lane says black is white you still won`t accept that he lied.

> Why do you suppose that these nebulous and unsupported "opinions", such as
> you're expressing, are all most of us ever see about Mark Lane?
>
> >> >Bugliosi was wrong about this, imo, but look at the context.
>
> >> What "context" can change an accurate description of the original bullet
> >> wound into a description totally at odds with the real description?
>
> > That's not what I said. Bugiosi's use of "ragged" was
> >wrong, period.
>
> If a lie was the best argument that Bugliosi could come up with to support the
> idea that the throat wound was *NOT* medical evidence of a frontal shooter, what
> are we to think, Jean?
>
> You refuse to even *label* it a lie,

You have failed to establish it as such.

> so your theory must be that after over 20
> years of research, he was too stupid or ignorant of the evidence to correctly
> utilize it.

Human beings make mistakes. Get back to us when you can establish
that Bugliosi didn`t make a mistake.

> You don't make a "mistake" like this - you're asking everyone to believe
> something that's just a tad incredible.

This isn`t how you rule out it was a mistake.

> >The context simply shows that his verdict on the
> >throat wound was based on other things, as it should've been.
>
> No Jean... he quite definitely asserted that the appearance of that wound
> supported his theory that it was an exit wound.
>
> As I'm sure you're aware of, the only *other* thing he could use to label it an
> exit wound is speculation.

Based on known facts.

> NO MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THAT WOUND WAS EVER MADE. Nor was transit established
> by medical evidence.
>
> Only by speculation - almost certainly occurring *AFTER* the autopsy was already
> over.
>
> So to be able to give direct PHYSICAL evidence, and I'm sure Jean, that you'll
> agree that wound *appearance* is physical evidence, that the wound was an exit
> wound was quite seductive to Bugliosi's instincts as a prosecutor.
>
> >> >Immediately after this quote he pointed out that neither Carrico nor
> >> >any other doctors in the ER were pathologists, "much less forensic
> >> >pathologists," and therefore not qualified to determine the direction
> >> >of the bullet. =A0He gave other reasons for believing this was an exit
> >> >wound.
>
> >> The topic, Jean, has *NOTHING* to do with the direction of the bullet.
> >> While certainly Bugliosi used this to defend the WCR's theory on the
> >> direction of the bullet, the REAL topic is how Bugliosi made up evidence
> >> to support his theory.
>
> >> It has EVERYTHING to do with the description of that bullet wound...
> >> which he simply lied about.
>
> > Do people never make dumb mistakes in your world?
>
> Sorry Jean... you're trying to make an argument that isn't credible.

Ben doesn`t like that answer. He likes the idea that Bugliosi lied.
But since he can`t really establish that Bugs knew "A" to be true, but
wrote "B" instead he can only challenge others to prove him wrong, not
prove himself right.

> It's *NOT CREDIBLE* that Bugliosi was unaware of the controversy surrounding
> this wound, indeed, ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE he discusses the Parkland press
> conference... so he *KNOWS* that the wound gave every appearance of being an
> entry wound.

Carrico testified it could have been an exit or an entrance.

> >Do they
> >only LIE?
>
> Feel free to make your best argument Jean... you're failing so far.
>
> >To prove a lie you need to show what was going on in his
> >mind. How are you going to do that?
>
> No Jean... I reject that.

Ben rejects reality. Words have meanings, can Ben supply a
definition for "lie" that fits the way he is using it?

> I know that it's symptomatic on the LNT'ers side to
> make this claim - but it's always ignored when speaking of Mark Lane or Douglas
> Horne, or ... you name the CT'er...
>
> The alternative is to believe that Bugliosi was either incredibly stupid
> (believing that the trachea description was identical to the description of the
> bullet wound in JFK's throat), or that he was incredibly ignorant of the medical
> evidence in this case.

False dilemma fallacy.

> THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES - *CREDIBLE* ALTERNATIVES, Jean. But if you
> believe that there are, GIVE US YOUR BEST ARGUMENT!

No, no, no. You establish that Bugliosi knew what he was writing
wasn`t true. Stop making the empty assertion that he must have.

> No-one has seen it yet, I hope.
>
> >> Can you provide *ANY* credible scenario under which this is *NOT* a lie
> >> on his part?
>
> > Bugliosi didn't simply "make up" the word -- Carrico used
> >"ragged" to describe a tear in the trachea, as I recall.
>
> Then you must be as ignorant as Bugliosi is on the medical evidence.
>
> I don't *have* to recall, I know it's a fact, and can locate relevant quotes
> quite quickly.
>
> But only a moron would confuse the trachea with the bullet wound in the skin.
>
> And only a complete liar would try to argue that the damage reported in the
> trachea gives evidence of the *direction* of the bullet.
>
> >I don't know
> >why Burliosi got this wrong, but since he doesn't use a computer, he
> >probably had oodles of printed or typed notes to work with. Maybe he
> >misread something, who knows? If this is the only goof you've found
> >in his book, good for him!
>
> Oh, I'm sure you know better...
>
> >Tell me why you think he picked this one
> >detail to lie about, of all things?
>
> No Jean, I reject your implied claim that this is the only item that Bugliosi
> lied about.

List them.

> ... and I'm quite sure you well understand the implications here, Jean.
>
> This is by *FAR* the strongest medical evidence for a frontal shooter.

It`s actually nothing. No forensic examination was performed to
determine whether this wound was an exit or entrance.

> All the rest of the medical evidence for a frontal shooter can be argued or
> explained away.
>
> This is far more difficult to do.

No it isn`t. Nobody make an examination of the wound to determine
it`s true nature before it was obscured by the trach.

> >> After all, I suspect that you *ARE* willing to label people such as Mark =
> >Lane
> >> liars on far less evidence.
>
> >> > Anyone who writes a 1500-page book is going to make errors.
> >> >Is this the worst mistake CTs have found in Bugliosi's book?
>
> >> You believe this to be an error?
>
> >> Can you defend that assertion?
>
> > Answer MY question, Ben. Is this the worst "lie" CTs
> >have found in his 1500-page book?
>
> It is, in my opinion, the one lie that is so obvious, that it serves as a litmus
> test to determine the honesty of people who try to defend it.

But Jean didn`t try to defend it, did she? She gave a possible
explanation for it. You didn`t like that explanation, but that isn`t
as meaningful as you seem to think it is.

The whole idea that Ben can nullify Bugliosi`s work with one
questionable passage is textbook Argument from Fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

This is an interesting excerpt that I think works well for Bugliosi
lapses in accuracy as well...

All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been
fallacious in some respect... If the argument is a single chain, and
one link fails, the chain itself fails with it. But most historians'
arguments are not single chains. They are rather like a kind of chain
mail which can fail in some part and still retain its shape and
function.
—David Hackett Fischer, Historians' fallacies[3]

> You've failed the test Jean, and I'm sure that *YOU* understand that there's no
> credible explanation that people will believe.

In other words unless your opinion matches Ben`s than your opinion
isn`t credible.

> Feel free to argue that Bugliosi didn't understand the medical evidence... that
> would be a credible argument.
>
> Feel free to argue that Bugliosi was simply too stupid to figure out the
> difference between the trachea and the original bullet wound... that would be a
> credible argument.
>
> But to argue that someone spent over 20 years studying this case, KNEW ABOUT THE
> PROBLEMS THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION HAD WITH EARLY REPORTS THAT THIS WAS AN
> ENTRY WOUND - probably knew the arguments that the wound was 'buttressed' by the
> collar, certainly knew that the WC had commissioned studies to demonstrate that
> entry wounds can look like exit wounds (WCR 91), and perhaps even knew of the
> claim that JFK had "turned around" to get shot in the throat, yet we must
> believe that he made an innocent error in describing this wound in contradiction
> to all his sources to support his theory that it was an exit wound.
>
> Sorry Jean... I've not practiced enough in believing impossible things...
>
> I'm just going to accept that he lied.

All the hot air aside, it comes down to Ben being comfortable with
the idea that Bugliosi lied and that Jean is uncomfortable with that
conclusion.

> By the way, in such an enormous tome, surely you can find "errors" that benefit
> the CT side, right?
>
> If errors are to be found, they would be equally split in their results, right?

Has the effort to find these errors been equally split?

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 26, 2012, 11:39:03 AM5/26/12

to

In article <a05e505a-352d-4bdd...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On May 25, 7:58=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>

>> >>> "My guess is that DVP refuses to even *try* to quote Carrico saying w=

>hat Bugliosi claimed he'd said... and so recognizes the lie." <<<
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>...
>> I admit that. Bugliosi's dead wrong on that
>> issue. Without question.
>>
>...
>
>why wasn't it corrected then? and don't tell us Dale *look at my EMMY*
>Myers wrote it!

The admission that *I'M* looking for is an admission that Bugliosi lied. Not the
desperate attempts to resurrect him that everyone is trying.

The *earliest* attempts by the LNT'er kooks was that the example given was
simply wrong... for example, last year:

*****************************************************************
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an

> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"

> virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound,
> which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually
> *say* this anywhere?

Yah, it took me two minutes to find it. In Carrico`s questioning by
the WC he said... "immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged
tracheal injury".
******************************************************************

And although I think most of the kooks will now admit that Bugliosi is *wrong*,
none of them yet will offer a credible explanation for why it's not an outright
lie on Bugliosi's part.

Jean

unread,

May 26, 2012, 3:09:46 PM5/26/12

to jjdavi...@yahoo.com

On May 25, 9:14 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <6d6d632e-4eae-431b-a3b9-ec7553fb2...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

I somehow missed your "demolishing."

>
> >Years ago, Governor Rockefeller called Lane's
> >allegations about a fellow politician "ruthlessly misleading." That's
> >Lane's methodology in a nutshell, in my opinion. But I can't exclude
> >the possibility that Lane actually believes what he's saying.
>
> This is really simple... just QUOTE what he stated, then cite the actual
> evidence.

I did that in "Mark Lane #3." More coming up.

>
> Not difficult at all Jean.
>
> Why can't anyone do it?
>
> Why do you suppose that these nebulous and unsupported "opinions", such as
> you're expressing, are all most of us ever see about Mark Lane?

For years now, people have exposed Lane's distortions on JFK
and other topics. Ask Google. Bugliosi has a chapter on Mark Lane,
starting p. 1000. Or read what the HSCA had to say about Lane in a
footnote on the MLK case:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0227b.htm

>
> >> >Bugliosi was wrong about this, imo, but look at the context.
>
> >> What "context" can change an accurate description of the original bullet
> >> wound into a description totally at odds with the real description?
>
> > That's not what I said. Bugiosi's use of "ragged" was
> >wrong, period.
>
> If a lie was the best argument that Bugliosi could come up with to support the
> idea that the throat wound was *NOT* medical evidence of a frontal shooter, what
> are we to think, Jean?

That error was far from being his "best argument." His
index shows 40 to 50 pages dealing with the throat wound. You're
talking about one sentence.

>
> You refuse to even *label* it a lie, so your theory must be that after over 20
> years of research, he was too stupid or ignorant of the evidence to correctly
> utilize it.

Smart people make dumb mistakes, like everyone else. You
seem to be arguing that he's infallible, that he knows every detail
about the case and never forgets.

>
> You don't make a "mistake" like this - you're asking everyone to believe
> something that's just a tad incredible.
>
> >The context simply shows that his verdict on the
> >throat wound was based on other things, as it should've been.
>
> No Jean... he quite definitely asserted that the appearance of that wound
> supported his theory that it was an exit wound.
>
> As I'm sure you're aware of, the only *other* thing he could use to label it an
> exit wound is speculation.
>
> NO MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THAT WOUND WAS EVER MADE. Nor was transit established
> by medical evidence.
>
> Only by speculation - almost certainly occurring *AFTER* the autopsy was already
> over.

Not by speculation. By reasonable inference. There's an
entrance wound in the upper back, a wound in the front, no bullet in
between according to the x-rays. The inference is obvious. What
alternative have CTs offered? Ice bullets? "Blood soluble rounds"?
Switched caskets and body tampering? Do you have some other
alternative?

>
> So to be able to give direct PHYSICAL evidence, and I'm sure Jean, that you'll
> agree that wound *appearance* is physical evidence, that the wound was an exit
> wound was quite seductive to Bugliosi's instincts as a prosecutor.
>
> >> >Immediately after this quote he pointed out that neither Carrico nor
> >> >any other doctors in the ER were pathologists, "much less forensic
> >> >pathologists," and therefore not qualified to determine the direction
> >> >of the bullet. =A0He gave other reasons for believing this was an exit
> >> >wound.
>
> >> The topic, Jean, has *NOTHING* to do with the direction of the bullet.
> >> While certainly Bugliosi used this to defend the WCR's theory on the
> >> direction of the bullet, the REAL topic is how Bugliosi made up evidence
> >> to support his theory.
>
> >> It has EVERYTHING to do with the description of that bullet wound...
> >> which he simply lied about.
>
> > Do people never make dumb mistakes in your world?
>
> Sorry Jean... you're trying to make an argument that isn't credible.
>
> It's *NOT CREDIBLE* that Bugliosi was unaware of the controversy surrounding
> this wound, indeed, ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE he discusses the Parkland press
> conference... so he *KNOWS* that the wound gave every appearance of being an
> entry wound.

Yes indeed, on p. 412 he quoted Dr. Perry saying it looked
like an entrance wound. He even criticized Posner and the WC for not
really confronting that fact, didn't he? And you claim he's not
honest?

>
> >Do they
> >only LIE?
>
> Feel free to make your best argument Jean... you're failing so far.

Feel free to answer my question.

>
> >To prove a lie you need to show what was going on in his
> >mind. How are you going to do that?
>
> No Jean... I reject that. I know that it's symptomatic on the LNT'ers side to
> make this claim - but it's always ignored when speaking of Mark Lane or Douglas
> Horne, or ... you name the CT'er...
>
> The alternative is to believe that Bugliosi was either incredibly stupid
> (believing that the trachea description was identical to the description of the
> bullet wound in JFK's throat), or that he was incredibly ignorant of the medical
> evidence in this case.
>
> THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES - *CREDIBLE* ALTERNATIVES, Jean. But if you
> believe that there are, GIVE US YOUR BEST ARGUMENT!

You think it's impossible that Bugliosi could've
remembered that Carrico had used the word "ragged" in relation to the
throat, but didn't recall that he was talking about an *interior*
wound?

>
> No-one has seen it yet, I hope.
>
> >> Can you provide *ANY* credible scenario under which this is *NOT* a lie
> >> on his part?
>
> > Bugliosi didn't simply "make up" the word -- Carrico used
> >"ragged" to describe a tear in the trachea, as I recall.
>
> Then you must be as ignorant as Bugliosi is on the medical evidence.
>
> I don't *have* to recall, I know it's a fact, and can locate relevant quotes
> quite quickly.
>
> But only a moron would confuse the trachea with the bullet wound in the skin.
>
> And only a complete liar would try to argue that the damage reported in the
> trachea gives evidence of the *direction* of the bullet.

Not if he'd forgotten that Carrico was talking about the
trachea, not the outer wound.

>
> >I don't know
> >why Burliosi got this wrong, but since he doesn't use a computer, he
> >probably had oodles of printed or typed notes to work with. Maybe he
> >misread something, who knows? If this is the only goof you've found
> >in his book, good for him!
>
> Oh, I'm sure you know better...
>
> >Tell me why you think he picked this one
> >detail to lie about, of all things?
>
> No Jean, I reject your implied claim that this is the only item that Bugliosi
> lied about.

I made no implied claim. Is this the only "lie" you've
found in Bugliosi's book? I'd certainly expect there to be other
errors in a work this size.

>
> ... and I'm quite sure you well understand the implications here, Jean.
>
> This is by *FAR* the strongest medical evidence for a frontal shooter.
>
> All the rest of the medical evidence for a frontal shooter can be argued or
> explained away.
>
> This is far more difficult to do.

Not at all. What's your preference -- ice bullets or
something else?

>
> >> After all, I suspect that you *ARE* willing to label people such as Mark =
> >Lane
> >> liars on far less evidence.
>
> >> > Anyone who writes a 1500-page book is going to make errors.
> >> >Is this the worst mistake CTs have found in Bugliosi's book?
>
> >> You believe this to be an error?
>
> >> Can you defend that assertion?
>
> > Answer MY question, Ben. Is this the worst "lie" CTs
> >have found in his 1500-page book?
>
> It is, in my opinion, the one lie that is so obvious, that it serves as a litmus
> test to determine the honesty of people who try to defend it.
>
> You've failed the test Jean, and I'm sure that *YOU* understand that there's no
> credible explanation that people will believe.

Ben, do you want to have a civil debate or not? Don't
question my honesty. It might not look good if you chase me away with
ad hominem, you know.

>
> Feel free to argue that Bugliosi didn't understand the medical evidence... that
> would be a credible argument.
>
> Feel free to argue that Bugliosi was simply too stupid to figure out the
> difference between the trachea and the original bullet wound... that would be a
> credible argument.
>
> But to argue that someone spent over 20 years studying this case, KNEW ABOUT THE
> PROBLEMS THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION HAD WITH EARLY REPORTS THAT THIS WAS AN
> ENTRY WOUND - probably knew the arguments that the wound was 'buttressed' by the
> collar, certainly knew that the WC had commissioned studies to demonstrate that
> entry wounds can look like exit wounds (WCR 91), and perhaps even knew of the
> claim that JFK had "turned around" to get shot in the throat, yet we must
> believe that he made an innocent error in describing this wound in contradiction
> to all his sources to support his theory that it was an exit wound.
>
> Sorry Jean... I've not practiced enough in believing impossible things...
>
> I'm just going to accept that he lied.
>
> By the way, in such an enormous tome, surely you can find "errors" that benefit
> the CT side, right?
>
> If errors are to be found, they would be equally split in their results, right?

You tell me. Have you found a single other "lie" in his
1500-page book? (A "yes" or "no" would be good.)

Jean

aeffects

unread,

May 26, 2012, 3:53:59 PM5/26/12

to

Top Post

C'mon Jean, after 20 years of research and this is the best Bugliosi
could do? Dale Myers write this part, perhaps? Bugliosi apologists
(aka lone nuts) have a strange way rectifying case evidence, eh?
simple yes or no will work!

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Repo...

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 26, 2012, 4:35:55 PM5/26/12

to

In article <f42f715c-a27c-4b0e...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 25, 9:14=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <6d6d632e-4eae-431b-a3b9-ec7553fb2...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>> >On May 24, 10:41=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9eb6602a-3395-47a5-9abb-97e25a3aa...@z19g2000vbe.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Jean says...
>>
>> >> >On May 24, 11:53=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to=
> we=3D
>> >igh=3D3D

>> >> > in on
>> >> >> this issue as well.
>>

>> >> >> I've been unable to find even a single LNT'er who will admit that B=
>ugl=3D

>> >iosi
>> >> >> lied on this issue.
>>
>> >> >> What's your opinion?
>>

>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 I almost never call anyone a liar, because I=
> can't read
>> >> >minds.
>>
>> >> And yet, you've jumped into a debate where the *SOLE* topic is whether=
> he=3D
>> > told
>> >> lies or not.
>>
>> >> You know, of course, if Mark Lane isn't lying, then your entire edific=

>e
>> >> is shown to be built on sand, not a firm foundation.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I don't pretend to know what is in Lane's mind.

>>
>> That isn't the topic, Jean.
>>
>> Was he *CORRECTLY* listing the evidence in this case?
>>
>> >I do
>> >know that I could point out Lane's distortions all day long and never
>> >run out of examples.
>>

>> You know, that's *PRECISELY* why I started this series... just to give al=

>l the
>> Warren Commission believers the opportunity to go ahead and give this
>> information.
>>

>> It's been INCREDIBLY difficult to get examples... and then refuting them =
>is
>> child's play.
>>
>> So why not start a series titled "Mark Lane's Distortions" - and perhaps =

>you'll
>> convince some people... just as my series is demolishing your stance.
>
> I somehow missed your "demolishing."

Of *course* you did.

>> >Years ago, Governor Rockefeller called Lane's

>> >allegations about a fellow politician "ruthlessly misleading." =A0That's
>> >Lane's methodology in a nutshell, in my opinion. =A0But I can't exclude

>> >the possibility that Lane actually believes what he's saying.
>>
>> This is really simple... just QUOTE what he stated, then cite the actual
>> evidence.
>
> I did that in "Mark Lane #3." More coming up.

Nah... you'll soon run away...

That's merely what we've seen, time and time again, in this forum.

"hit and runs"

>> Not difficult at all Jean.
>>
>> Why can't anyone do it?
>>
>> Why do you suppose that these nebulous and unsupported "opinions", such as
>> you're expressing, are all most of us ever see about Mark Lane?
>
> For years now, people have exposed Lane's distortions on JFK
>and other topics. Ask Google. Bugliosi has a chapter on Mark Lane,
>starting p. 1000. Or read what the HSCA had to say about Lane in a
>footnote on the MLK case:
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Re=
>port_0227b.htm

It's *easy* to point to some other published opinion... unfortunately, that
published opinion can't answer back when I refute it.

I'm asking *YOU* to provide a quote, then a citation showing that the quote
contradicts the known evidence.

Why is this so difficult to do?

If you want, you can go ahead and quote one of the cites you listed above, THEN
BE READY TO DEFEND IT.

>> >> >Bugliosi was wrong about this, imo, but look at the context.
>>

>> >> What "context" can change an accurate description of the original bull=

>et
>> >> wound into a description totally at odds with the real description?
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0That's not what I said. =A0Bugiosi's use of =
>"ragged" was
>> >wrong, period.
>>
>> If a lie was the best argument that Bugliosi could come up with to suppor=
>t the
>> idea that the throat wound was *NOT* medical evidence of a frontal shoote=

>r, what
>> are we to think, Jean?
>
> That error was far from being his "best argument." His
>index shows 40 to 50 pages dealing with the throat wound. You're
>talking about one sentence.

Specifics, Jean.

Tell us why it's reasonable that Bugliosi simply made a mistake.

>> You refuse to even *label* it a lie, so your theory must be that after ov=
>er 20
>> years of research, he was too stupid or ignorant of the evidence to corre=

>ctly
>> utilize it.
>
> Smart people make dumb mistakes, like everyone else. You
>seem to be arguing that he's infallible, that he knows every detail
>about the case and never forgets.

This is a fairly large detail, Jean... as you well know.

The description of the throat wound is well attested in multiple ways throughout
this case.

>> You don't make a "mistake" like this - you're asking everyone to believe
>> something that's just a tad incredible.
>>
>> >The context simply shows that his verdict on the
>> >throat wound was based on other things, as it should've been.
>>
>> No Jean... he quite definitely asserted that the appearance of that wound
>> supported his theory that it was an exit wound.
>>

>> As I'm sure you're aware of, the only *other* thing he could use to label=

> it an
>> exit wound is speculation.
>>

>> NO MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THAT WOUND WAS EVER MADE. Nor was transit estab=
>lished
>> by medical evidence.
>>
>> Only by speculation - almost certainly occurring *AFTER* the autopsy was =

>already
>> over.
>
> Not by speculation. By reasonable inference. There's an
>entrance wound in the upper back, a wound in the front, no bullet in
>between according to the x-rays. The inference is obvious. What
>alternative have CTs offered? Ice bullets? "Blood soluble rounds"?
>Switched caskets and body tampering? Do you have some other
>alternative?

Yep... speculation. You're offering exactly what I stated... speculation.

This is quite probably the reason that Bugliosi lied... by lying about the
description of the wound, he was IMMEASURABLY increasing the strength of the
WCR's theory.

>> So to be able to give direct PHYSICAL evidence, and I'm sure Jean, that y=
>ou'll
>> agree that wound *appearance* is physical evidence, that the wound was an=

> exit
>> wound was quite seductive to Bugliosi's instincts as a prosecutor.
>>
>> >> >Immediately after this quote he pointed out that neither Carrico nor
>> >> >any other doctors in the ER were pathologists, "much less forensic
>> >> >pathologists," and therefore not qualified to determine the direction

>> >> >of the bullet. =3DA0He gave other reasons for believing this was an e=

>xit
>> >> >wound.
>>
>> >> The topic, Jean, has *NOTHING* to do with the direction of the bullet.
>> >> While certainly Bugliosi used this to defend the WCR's theory on the

>> >> direction of the bullet, the REAL topic is how Bugliosi made up eviden=

>ce
>> >> to support his theory.
>>
>> >> It has EVERYTHING to do with the description of that bullet wound...
>> >> which he simply lied about.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Do people never make dumb mistakes in your world=

>?
>>
>> Sorry Jean... you're trying to make an argument that isn't credible.
>>

>> It's *NOT CREDIBLE* that Bugliosi was unaware of the controversy surround=

>ing
>> this wound, indeed, ON THE PREVIOUS PAGE he discusses the Parkland press

>> conference... so he *KNOWS* that the wound gave every appearance of being=

> an
>> entry wound.
>
> Yes indeed, on p. 412 he quoted Dr. Perry saying it looked
>like an entrance wound. He even criticized Posner and the WC for not
>really confronting that fact, didn't he? And you claim he's not
>honest?

LOL!!!

You're admitting that just one page earlier, HE KNEW THAT IT LOOKED LIKE AN
ENTRY WOUND.

So tell us Jean, on what *credible* basis can you believe that he suddenly
forgot?

Surely not the hearsay that he used as his source citation???

>> >Do they
>> >only LIE?
>>
>> Feel free to make your best argument Jean... you're failing so far.
>
> Feel free to answer my question.

Jean, your question is stupid, but I'll answer it anyway...

Even the most dishonest person imaginable, one who's completely lost to any
concept of honesty or reality, will not always lie.

Now, tell us why it's reasonable for Bugliosi to go to a source of hearsay to
explain how Carrico described the wound, despite the fact that he'd read
Carrico's testimony, and cited it in other locations.

>> >To prove a lie you need to show what was going on in his

>> >mind. =A0How are you going to do that?
>>
>> No Jean... I reject that. I know that it's symptomatic on the LNT'ers sid=
>e to
>> make this claim - but it's always ignored when speaking of Mark Lane or D=

>ouglas
>> Horne, or ... you name the CT'er...
>>
>> The alternative is to believe that Bugliosi was either incredibly stupid

>> (believing that the trachea description was identical to the description =
>of the
>> bullet wound in JFK's throat), or that he was incredibly ignorant of the =

>medical
>> evidence in this case.
>>
>> THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES - *CREDIBLE* ALTERNATIVES, Jean. But if you
>> believe that there are, GIVE US YOUR BEST ARGUMENT!
>
> You think it's impossible that Bugliosi could've
>remembered that Carrico had used the word "ragged" in relation to the
>throat, but didn't recall that he was talking about an *interior*
>wound?

I see you're using the same argument that David Von Pein used... that Bugliosi
was simply too stupid to figure out the difference between the original bullet
wound, and the trachea.

That's certainly possible... Bugliosi has admitted to a dislike of science, as
Mantik mentioned.

So why should we accept anything he said about the medical evidence if he's too
stupid to understand it?

And while you're explaining that - TELL US WHY HE CITED HEARSAY INSTEAD OF
CARRICO'S TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.

>> No-one has seen it yet, I hope.
>>

>> >> Can you provide *ANY* credible scenario under which this is *NOT* a li=
>e
>> >> on his part?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Bugliosi didn't simply "make up" the word -- Car=

>rico used
>> >"ragged" to describe a tear in the trachea, as I recall.
>>
>> Then you must be as ignorant as Bugliosi is on the medical evidence.
>>

>> I don't *have* to recall, I know it's a fact, and can locate relevant quo=
>tes
>> quite quickly.
>>
>> But only a moron would confuse the trachea with the bullet wound in the s=

>kin.
>>
>> And only a complete liar would try to argue that the damage reported in the
>> trachea gives evidence of the *direction* of the bullet.
>
> Not if he'd forgotten that Carrico was talking about the
>trachea, not the outer wound.

Sorry you misunderstood, Jean... but I meant PRECISELY what I stated... one kook
in this forum argued that:

"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would
the hole in the trachea be ragged...?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96c8f622cfc5ccdc

I meant EXACTLY what I stated... that only a complete liar would try to argue
that the damage reported in the trachea gives evidence of the direction of the
bullet.

>> >I don't know
>> >why Burliosi got this wrong, but since he doesn't use a computer, he

>> >probably had oodles of printed or typed notes to work with. =A0Maybe he
>> >misread something, who knows? =A0 If this is the only goof you've found

>> >in his book, good for him!
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure you know better...
>>
>> >Tell me why you think he picked this one
>> >detail to lie about, of all things?
>>
>> No Jean, I reject your implied claim that this is the only item that Bugliosi
>> lied about.
>
> I made no implied claim. Is this the only "lie" you've
>found in Bugliosi's book? I'd certainly expect there to be other
>errors in a work this size.

"Tell me why you think he picked this one detail to lie about, of all things?"

Jean... you're lying.

Or, if you think you're not, explain your statement quoted above in a way that
does *NOT* involve "one detail to lie about, of all things"

The implication that he only lied once is so evident, that if you can explain
your sentence otherwise, I'd be happy to apologize.

But you most certainly DID imply that this was the one lie he told. (according
to me.)

>> ... and I'm quite sure you well understand the implications here, Jean.
>>
>> This is by *FAR* the strongest medical evidence for a frontal shooter.
>>

>> All the rest of the medical evidence for a frontal shooter can be argued =

>or
>> explained away.
>>
>> This is far more difficult to do.
>
> Not at all. What's your preference -- ice bullets or
>something else?

Douglas Horne describes it quite well and credibly in his five volume set.

>> >> After all, I suspect that you *ARE* willing to label people such as Ma=
>rk =3D

>> >Lane
>> >> liars on far less evidence.
>>
>> >> > Anyone who writes a 1500-page book is going to make errors.
>> >> >Is this the worst mistake CTs have found in Bugliosi's book?
>>
>> >> You believe this to be an error?
>>
>> >> Can you defend that assertion?
>>

>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Answer MY question, Ben. =A0Is this the =

>worst "lie" CTs
>> >have found in his 1500-page book?
>>

>> It is, in my opinion, the one lie that is so obvious, that it serves as a=

> litmus
>> test to determine the honesty of people who try to defend it.
>>

>> You've failed the test Jean, and I'm sure that *YOU* understand that ther=

>e's no
>> credible explanation that people will believe.
>
> Ben, do you want to have a civil debate or not? Don't
>question my honesty. It might not look good if you chase me away with
>ad hominem, you know.

Sorry Jean, I call 'em as I see 'em.

I'm quick to apologize if I'm caught out, but I'm also quick to point out lies
and dishonesty.

Bugliosi *KNEW* that the throat wound *LOOKED* like an entry wound... yet he
lied about it.

The only other reasonable explanations are either that he was too stupid to tell
the difference between the trachea and the outer skin of the throat, or that he
was simply too ignorant of the medical evidence to understand.

You clearly believe one or the other... I don't.

>> Feel free to argue that Bugliosi didn't understand the medical evidence..=

>. that
>> would be a credible argument.
>>
>> Feel free to argue that Bugliosi was simply too stupid to figure out the

>> difference between the trachea and the original bullet wound... that woul=

>d be a
>> credible argument.
>>

>> But to argue that someone spent over 20 years studying this case, KNEW AB=
>OUT THE
>> PROBLEMS THAT THE WARREN COMMISSION HAD WITH EARLY REPORTS THAT THIS WAS =
>AN
>> ENTRY WOUND - probably knew the arguments that the wound was 'buttressed'=
> by the
>> collar, certainly knew that the WC had commissioned studies to demonstrat=
>e that
>> entry wounds can look like exit wounds (WCR 91), and perhaps even knew of=

> the
>> claim that JFK had "turned around" to get shot in the throat, yet we must

>> believe that he made an innocent error in describing this wound in contra=

>diction
>> to all his sources to support his theory that it was an exit wound.
>>
>> Sorry Jean... I've not practiced enough in believing impossible things...
>>
>> I'm just going to accept that he lied.
>>

>> By the way, in such an enormous tome, surely you can find "errors" that b=

>enefit
>> the CT side, right?
>>

>> If errors are to be found, they would be equally split in their results, =

>right?
>
> You tell me. Have you found a single other "lie" in his
>1500-page book? (A "yes" or "no" would be good.)

Yes.

Now, tell us Jean, is it good practice to cite hearsay when you have the
person's original testimony to cite? (A "yes" or "no" would be good.)

And can you offer a credible explanation?

>Jean
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Jean
>>
>> >> >Jean
>>
>> >> >> *******************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >****
>> >> >> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound =
>was=3D
>> > an
>> >> >> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"=
> vi=3D
>> >rtu=3D3D
>> >> >ally a
>> >> >> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which i=
>s u=3D
>> >sua=3D3D

>> >> >lly
>> >> >> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>

>> >> >> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico act=
>ual=3D
>> >ly =3D3D

>> >> >*say*
>> >> >> this anywhere?
>>
>> >> >> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?

>> >> >> *******************************************************************=
>***=3D

Bud

unread,

May 26, 2012, 5:12:55 PM5/26/12

to

On May 26, 11:39 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <a05e505a-352d-4bdd-96a8-d223fceee...@pr3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

That was me, and it was absolutely true then and now. Yes, the wound
in the throat was ragged (since the trachea is in the throat) and yes
Carrico did use the word "ragged" to describe a throat wound.

> ******************************************************************
>
> And although I think most of the kooks will now admit that Bugliosi is *wrong*,
> none of them yet will offer a credible explanation for why it's not an outright
> lie on Bugliosi's part.

Nor will you ever establish as fact that it was a lie on Bugliosi`s
part. Since the burden of proof is on you we`ll just wait to you pony
some up.

Bud

unread,

May 26, 2012, 5:21:02 PM5/26/12

to

On May 26, 3:53 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Top Post
>
> C'mon Jean, after 20 years of research and this is the best Bugliosi
> could do?

Is this the best you retards can do, one think to harp about in a
huge book? I guess the rest is fine, eh?

Bill Clarke

unread,

May 26, 2012, 5:27:28 PM5/26/12

to

In article <f42f715c-a27c-4b0e...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Jean says...
>
>On May 25, 9:14=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <6d6d632e-4eae-431b-a3b9-ec7553fb2...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 24, 10:41=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9eb6602a-3395-47a5-9abb-97e25a3aa...@z19g2000vbe.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Jean says...
>>
>> >> >On May 24, 11:53=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> It's so rare to find an honest LNT'er... that perhaps you'd like to=
> we=3D
>> >igh=3D3D