OLIVER STONE'S MOVIE "JFK" AND THE BRAINWASHING OF AMERICA
David Von Pein
PICTURE......
====================================================
CTer --- Bugliosi is a shyster who always tries to make a buck by
writing a book whenever a controversial subject like the OJ Simpson
case or the 2000 election comes around. Now he is just looking to make
a buck on the Kennedy assassination at the expense of desperate lone
nutters like you, who are desperately looking for some kind of
alternative to Oliver Stone's classic movie. Good luck!
DVP --- Can I ask you a serious question? Do you truly think that the
pre-planned, multi-gun, 1-patsy plot proposed in Oliver Stone's
"classic" (your word) movie was a very good assassination plan?
Or do you think that (just perhaps) Mr. Stone took some dramatic
liberties re. that type of "plot" during the course of this "classic"
film?
================================
CTer --- I believe this account of what happened in the JFK
assassination {within Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK"} to be the most
accurate account of what happened to date. The criticism this movie
receives from people like you is a testament to its authenticity.
DVP --- That's all I needed to know. Thanks. So you actually believe,
per the above statement you made, that a band of conspirators (well in
advance of 11/22/63) got together to frame a lone patsy named Oswald
and then decided to use 3 gunmen and 6 shots to kill the President
(all of which cannot possibly be linked to only Oswald's Carcano
rifle)....all the while their "patsy" is roaming around on the lower
floors of the TSBD, possibly gaining for himself an ironclad alibi.
Correct?
And just exactly what makes the above Stone- and Garrison-proposed
theory anything more than pure out-and-out fantasy (not to mention
utter lunacy from the PRE-11/22 perspective)?
Please....enlighten the masses with your JFK brilliance.
================================
CTer --- I'll believe Stone and Garrison long before I would believe a
lying piece of crap like you, Buddy. I know all about you and your
cowardly lone-nut friends who stalk people who come here in peace to
discuss this movie just to have dirtbags like you horn in, hurling
lies and insults at them. You lone-nutters are the dregs of society,
thankfully you only represent a very small portion of the human race.
DVP --- Lovely diatribe. Thanks. Does this mean I can forget about
that birthday card (and expensive gift) that I've been expecting from
you this year? ;)
================================
DVP --- If you were put in charge of framing your lone patsy on
11/22/63, would you have placed three gunmen all throughout Dealey
Plaza? Or would you have fired from ONLY the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD
using only your patsy's gun?
And would you allow your patsy to wander around in the lunchroom at
12:30, where he's quite likely to be seen by people AT LUNCHTIME?
Just wondering?
CTer --- It didn't matter how many gunmen there were, you know that.
Oswald was going to be charged no matter what.
DVP --- What if Oswald had called in sick on 11/22? What then? Would
the plotters have re-routed the motorcade to have it pass by Ruth
Paine's home in Irving?
================================
CTer --- Look at all the ridiculous excuses that have already been
manufactured to support the lone-gunman theory: the single bullet
theory, the jet effect theory....none of this is true; you know it as
well as I do.
DVP --- You seem to be a perfect, quintessential example of how Oliver
Stone has almost single-handedly manipulated the minds of many
evidence-ignorant people with respect to the facts surrounding the
events of Nov. 22, 1963.
A pity. It really is.
I strongly encourage you to pick this up when available (it'll be
heavy, yes...but just bend your knees before picking it up)..... ;)
www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
================================
CTer --- No one was in the lunch room at 12:30 but Oswald.
DVP --- Which one? He claimed to have been in BOTH the 1st-Floor and
2nd-Floor lunchrooms ("Domino Room" on the 1st Floor, as it was
called) at the time of the shooting.
He sure got lucky as hell, huh? Not a single person in either
LUNCHroom except Oswald...at LUNCHtime.
You don't find "Patsy Framing" luck like that very often.
================================
CTer --- If Oswald had decided to walk out on to the street to view
the motorcade, the patsy plan obviously would have fallen apart and he
could not have been charged with the crime. But he didn't, probably
because he was an anarchist and had no interest in seeing the
President.
DVP --- And, of course, those plotters who were guiding him through
every movement he made on Nov. 22 somehow KNEW that he would have no
interest in sticking his head out the door at 12:30....right?
================================
CTer --- But, then again, he had no idea of what was about to happen,
just like everyone else. He played right into the plotters hands
perfectly.
DVP --- Yeah, right. He framed himself it seems. And what about the
Tippit murder? Was LHO guilty of that murder? Or was he a patsy there
too?
And what about the mountain of LIES that Oswald told the cops after
his arrest?
Does an innocent "patsy" (who had "no idea of what was about to
happen" to JFK on 11/22/63) really need to lie this much? Really?
Think about it. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
lazu...@webtv.net
service to the righting of the historical record, by establishing a
high-level conspiracy in the assassination, and the broad cover-up
afterwards, fully abetted by a gullible and complacent media.
Despite the establishment's unprecedented attack on the film, it did
bring about two important
accomplishments, the awakening of the public, who in turn forced the
formation of the ARRB, and the subsequent release of mountains of
previously secret documents, none of which bolstered the government's LN
scenario, but which did indeed point to conspiracy and cover-up,
especially in the medical evidence.
If LHO did it all by his lonesome, how come all the secrecy? I hope I
live until 2017, when another mountain of secret documents will be open
to the public, material which promises to be even more damaging to the
government's case.----
Old Laz
aeffects
David I suspect you've been speaking with your *own* alter ego! Carry-
on!
David Von Pein
Yeah, like Stone's minor "flaw" in labelling Oswald innocent of even
TIPPIT'S murder too. Right?
That was just a "minor flaw". Right?
And the 3-assassin, 6-shot plot within the context of a PRE-ARRANGED
(key term there) lone-patsy assassination plot? That's not a "flaw" at
all, is it? (Or do you think it is?)
As I said before, Mr. Stone's film is almost 100% distortion and
outright lies/misrepresentation.
And why is Gary Oldman (Oswald) wearing a jacket when he's seen by
Johnny Brewer in the film? .....
WC Testimony:
Mr. BREWER - He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
~~~~~~~~
Stone's film gets a large chapter in VB's "Reclaiming History". And
deservedly so. Because the content of that film needs to be taken down
to the "Pure Trash" level -- where it belongs. And VB's the one to do
it.
aeffects
of course Bugliosi will give Stone recognition, and due (the last
person in this world [with the exception of Mark Lane and we ALL know
the reason why Bugliosi won't want to face a Mark Lane], Bugliosi
certainly doesn't want a confrontation or pissing match with STONE --
Bugliosi needs Oliver Stone's-JFK, just like David Reitzes needed
Stone, like McAdams needs Stone and all you weak kneed Nutter sistah's
need Oliver Stone's JFK....
Nutter's need a fictional account of the assassination to bray at, and
a fictional LHO mock trial to throw their support behind....thus
offseting any serious consideration for what the WCR omitted and "bent
the truth" (gentle), if not out-right lied about... talk about a
fictional account of the JFK assassination, the WCR is "farcical"....
How's that Webster?
We call that "shuck-n-jive", David... A neutered *cop* out...
David Von Pein
We all know you CT-Kooks couldn't live without a "Conspiracy" to latch
onto. It's your air. It's your food. It's your reason for living.
(Certainly your whole reason for taking up space in this place.)
And a whole bunch of you kooks RIGHT HERE in the asylum DO believe in
(or say you do anyway) EXACTLY what Oliver Stone's film is portraying
-- i.e., OSWALD WAS JUST A PATSY AND NEVER KILLED ANYBODY (NOT EVEN
TIPPIT).
And now you're calling Stone's film a "fictional account of the
assassination"???
So, Oswald, then, WASN'T "just a patsy" in your eyes I guess...right
Dave H.?
Oswald DID at least kill Tippit in your view, huh David?
If Stone's film is "fictional" (as you just admitted)....what's
"fictional" about it in your view? Let's hear it.
aeffects
> To aeffects.......
>
> We all know you CT-Kooks couldn't live without a "Conspiracy" to latch
> onto. It's your air. It's your food. It's your reason for living.
> (Certainly your whole reason for taking up space in this place.)
if it smells like a pig, walks like one, looks like one, snort and
snickers like one, chances are it's probaby a pig, er-- a conspiracy
--
> And a whole bunch of you kooks RIGHT HERE in the asylum DO believe in
> (or say you do anyway) EXACTLY what Oliver Stone's film is portraying
> -- i.e., OSWALD WAS JUST A PATSY AND NEVER KILLED ANYBODY (NOT EVEN
> TIPPIT).
>
> And now you're calling Stone's film a "fictional account of the
> assassination"???
David have you ever read a Stone interview, heard him speak, read the
films script? Why are you surprised by that?
> So, Oswald, then, WASN'T "just a patsy" in your eyes I guess...right
> Dave H.?
well, David I just can't pin this on Oswald, I've been waiting for 10
years to hear something, ANYTHING intelligent out of the Lone Nut camp
concerning Oswald. So far, I have to say, it appears even a 2nd year
law student could get Oswald to walk.... with or without daBugliosi
opposing...
> Oswald DID at least kill Tippit in your view, huh David?
can't positively ID him at the scene David, so how can you convict
him? Foolishness!
You know you can't chamber a .38cal revolvers rounds in a .38cal
automatic, right?
> If Stone's film is "fictional" (as you just admitted)....what's
> "fictional" about it in your view? Let's hear it.
I've never denied that David, does that surprise you? Me with 40 years
in the business, and you're shocked that I refer to Stone's movie as a
fictional account....? It's that and a Masterpiece, in the same
breath....
So, let me give you a frame of reference: Mary Poppins the movie; I
don't think Poppins flew a bike!
Now, Nutter's have studiously avoided my questions in this thread, are
you Nutter's at a lose for words?
David Von Pein
<laugh>
You haven't been looking very hard then.
Probably RELYING too much on CT writers.
>>> "I've been waiting for 10 years to hear something, ANYTHING intelligent out of the Lone Nut camp concerning Oswald." <<<
I've provided plenty. So has Bud. So has .john. So has Todd. So has
Steve B. So has Chad. So has Jean Davison. So has Ed. And others too.
I guess you just haven't been reading these people properly. A "CS&L"
gene is required to get the full gist of it, though.
>>> "So far, I have to say, it appears even a 2nd year law student could get Oswald to walk...with or without daBugliosi opposing." <<<
<laugh>
All OSWALD evidence = Oswald would "walk" (per Dave Healy).
<laugh>
>>> "Can't positively ID him at the {Tippit} scene, David; so how can you convict him?" <<<
This is just an outright lie, Dave.
Several witnesses put Oswald (with a gun) on 10th Street.
Why are you "pulling a Stone" here?
>>> "You know you can't chamber a .38cal revolvers rounds in a .38cal automatic, right?" <<<
Who cares? Oswald was IDed as Tippit's killer. Oz's gun (on him!) was
the murder weapon.
How much more do you need. A Zapruder Film on Tenth St. showing Ozzie
doing it?
>>> "Now, Nutters have studiously avoided my questions in this thread, are you Nutters at a lose [loss] for words?" <<<
What questions in this thread? I see none. Maybe they're cloaked
somehow, and I can't see them.
aeffects
> >>> "I just can't pin this on Oswald..." <<<
>
> <laugh>
>
> You haven't been looking very hard then.
shit David -- I've read a considerable amount here and elswhere and
the best i can surmise is, quite simply: there are a lot of WC aper's
hereabouts.... simple as that, nothing original, same old amntra for
the alst 10 years....
> Probably RELYING too much on CT writers.
why would I do that? Concerning this issue documentary producers would
look to BOTH sides of an issue. I suspect you couldn't deliver 5-8
minutes of *finished* rightside script material (15 pages) concerning
the advancement of the Lone Nut position since the '64 Warren
Commission Report...
> >>> "I've been waiting for 10 years to hear something, ANYTHING intelligent out of the Lone Nut camp concerning Oswald." <<<
>
> I've provided plenty. So has Bud. So has .john. So has Todd. So has
> Steve B. So has Chad. So has Jean Davison. So has Ed. And others too.
pardon me -- they've a vested interest in promoting the Lone Nut
cause. Ed Cage, you've got to be joking -- the others yes. Look your
star in this is the WCR, you're straddled with it..... your gonna have
to fry new fish elsewhere -- the above are old, old, OLD news... even
the bluehaired ladies....
> I guess you just haven't been reading these people properly. A "CS&L"
> gene is required to get the full gist of it, though.
oh David, you're not talking to one of the minions that follow you
about..... drop me those 15 pages, make sure it's the best the
Nutter's have -- 2 column of film script format is fine, take your
best shot at visuals, too....
> >>> "So far, I have to say, it appears even a 2nd year law student could get Oswald to walk...with or without daBugliosi opposing." <<<
>
> <laugh>
>
> All OSWALD evidence = Oswald would "walk" (per Dave Healy).
only "honest" conclusion out there, based on the WCR, supporting
documents in the volumes.
Sure a Dallas jury would of sentenced oswald to death. From the
moment of said sentenced death, members of that jury would of had
their last restful nights sleep, for the rest of their lives.... To be
continually plagued by Oswald and his participation (or lack thereof)
just like Lone Nutters of today are....
> <laugh>
>
> >>> "Can't positively ID him at the {Tippit} scene, David; so how can you convict him?" <<<
>
> This is just an outright lie, Dave.
>
> Several witnesses put Oswald (with a gun) on 10th Street.
was that complete with William Manchester like description of the
scene? A revolver or automatic, who ID'd positively Oswald as the 10th
St., trigger man?
>
> Why are you "pulling a Stone" here?
you going to lauch into a William Manchester like description -- Have
no fear in my challenging Manchester's feeble work of alleged history,
either
> >>> "You know you can't chamber a .38cal revolvers rounds in a .38cal automatic, right?" <<<
>
> Who cares? Oswald was IDed as Tippit's killer. Oz's gun (on him!) was
> the murder weapon.
> How much more do you need.
simple, how you'd deal with a Mark Lanes defense of LHO -- be an
uprught Nutter, tell us...
A Zapruder Film on Tenth St. showing Ozzie
> doing it?
probably the altered version, right? everywhere the Nutter's turn a
plethora of questions, I suspect the CTer's won't be surprised thios
time around
> >>> "Now, Nutters have studiously avoided my questions in this thread, are you Nutters at a lose [loss] for words?" <<<
>
> What questions in this thread? I see none. Maybe they're cloaked
> somehow, and I can't see them.
when it comes to Oliver Stone Nutter's can't see ANYTHING but
*R*E*D....there are a few questions posed....
Todd W. Vaughan
How about...
Barbara Jeanette Davis
Virginia Davis
Ted Calloway
Jack Tatum
You really don't know the case, do you, turtle?
Todd W. Vaughan
LMFAO.
Bugliosi has debated Lane 3 times already.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
Bugliosi
> certainly doesn't want a confrontation or pissing match with STONE --
> Bugliosi needs Oliver Stone's-JFK, just like David Reitzes needed
> Stone, like McAdams needs Stone and all you weak kneed Nutter sistah's
> need Oliver Stone's JFK....
>
> Nutter's need a fictional account of the assassination to bray at, and
> a fictional LHO mock trial to throw their support behind....thus
> offseting any serious consideration for what the WCR omitted and "bent
> the truth" (gentle), if not out-right lied about... talk about a
> fictional account of the JFK assassination, the WCR is "farcical"....
> How's that Webster?
>
> We call that "shuck-n-jive", David... A neutered *cop* out...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
Did the authorities alter the Walker back yard photo?
Is it a Felony to alter evidence?
http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175803769.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Oliver Stone "Brain Flushed" America.
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175806371.0...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175806741.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
what, no collegiality? A second rate entertainer not giving Oliver
Stone recognition due?
> Bugliosi has debated Lane 3 times already.
hell Todd, give us a recap, give the dates of and places -- better
yet, a link to the and debate transcriptions...
> You really don't know what you're talking about.
my gosh -- this Nutter is predisposed to what? Whispers of the tarot
cards? Links to the debate will be just fine -- Let Cter's review the
"debate" between DBugliosi and Lane, or you just spoofing us?
> Bugliosi
>
> > certainly doesn't want a confrontation or pissing match with STONE --
> > Bugliosi needs Oliver Stone's-JFK, just like David Reitzes needed
> > Stone, like McAdams needs Stone and all you weak kneed Nutter sistah's
> > need Oliver Stone's JFK....
>
> > Nutter's need a fictional account of the assassination to bray at, and
> > a fictional LHO mock trial to throw their support behind....thus
> > offseting any serious consideration for what the WCR omitted and "bent
> > the truth" (gentle), if not out-right lied about... talk about a
> > fictional account of the JFK assassination, the WCR is "farcical"....
> > How's that Webster?
>
> > We call that "shuck-n-jive", David... A neutered *cop* out...- Hide quoted text -
what no comment Todd? Tell us shuck-n-jive doesn't offend you....
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175810964....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "I've read a considerable amount here and elsewhere, and the best I can surmise is, quite simply: there are a lot of WC apers hereabouts. Simple as that. Nothing original. Same old mantra for the last 10 years." <<<
<laugh>
As if the LN position NEEDS anything "original".
Are you serious??
The WC got it RIGHT from the get-go, for Christ sake. LNers know this.
So why would LNers need to search for anything "original"? Just for
the sport of it?
I can use my "car keys" analogy again here (it seems to fit) --- i.e.,
An LNer searching for something "new" or "original" in the JFK case
would be akin to an LNer continuing to search for his missing set of
car keys in the chair cushions after he's already found them.
Will all the Oswald-implicating evidence suddenly CHANGE into evidence
favoring--say--James E. Files if I say something "original" and non-WC-
based?
Now, that's not to say that some new WC-supporting things haven't been
utilized by lone-assassin advocates since 1964 to enhance the
Commission's LN conclusion. (See next section of comments.)
But these new and better advancements in technology have all only
AIDED the "original" bottom-line WC-backed conclusion of "OSWALD
KILLED KENNEDY".
And I wonder what the odds are of having all of this newer modern-day
digital technology providing further indications of the likelihood of
Oswald being able to do just what the WC said he did....and yet having
Oswald actually being NOT GUILTY of shooting John F. Kennedy in the
manner laid out by the Warren Commission?
If the "plotters" were smart enough to think 30 to 40 years into the
future when they "framed" Lee Harvey Oswald for murder (in
anticipation of the "Digital Age"), then I guess those incredibly-
prescient conspirators deserve to get away with it!
>>> "I suspect you couldn't deliver 5-8 minutes of *finished* rightside script material (15 pages) concerning the advancement of the Lone Nut position since the '64 Warren Commission Report." <<<
Are you serious? Or just a complete dope?
There are several WC-supporting "advancements" that bolster the
Commission's final "LN/LHO/SBT" conclusions:
The Clark Panel and HSCA to name two (the acoustics business not
included; because it's been totally trashed; so the HSCA fully backs
up the WC scenario in the FINAL analysis).
Another advancement being the clearer, digital enhancements made to
the Zapruder Film.
Dale Myers' work and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT test, to name two
more "advancements" that buttress the WC version of events.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
John K. Lattimer's work for yet another.....
Gerald Posner's very good book...to name another pro-LN bright spot
(CTer criticism notwithstanding, of course).....
And for yet another, there's Jean Davison's fabulous look at Lee
Harvey Oswald and what made him tick (and kill).....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c2238388f0a72c3
And the biggest "LN" shot in the arm of them all will be....you
guessed it...."Reclaiming History":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
Now, what was it you were saying about "WC advancements"?? Maybe I
didn't hear your seemingly-silly question accurately. (Ya think?) ;)
>>> "Oh David, you're not talking to one of the minions that follow you about..." <<<
Yes, actually, I think I am. ;)
>>> "Drop me those 15 pages..." <<<
I did it in a lot less than 15 (above).
>>> "Sure, a Dallas jury would of [sic] sentenced Oswald to death." <<<
<laugh>
Where's that "2nd-year law student" when you need him? (You know,
Dave, the 2nd-year law student who you said "could get Oswald to walk,
with or without daBugliosi opposing".)
That law student must've been out of town when the Dallas jury would
have convicted Oswald, huh?
>>> "A revolver or automatic...?" <<<
You're not REALLY going down this worn-out path (again), are you?
The "automatic" reference originally stemmed from Ted Callaway's
description of the weapon to the police (merely because of the "raised
pistol position" in which Callaway observed Oswald carrying the gun).
If you want to contend the shells were from an automatic...then
produce those shells. Where are they? Just one will suffice.
>>> "Who ID'd positively Oswald as the 10th St. trigger man?" <<<
Again....are you serious???? Somebody pinch me.
Are you really saying you have no idea who the SEVERAL persons were
who positively IDed Oswald as Tippit's killer?
Or is this one of those crazy "NONE OF THOSE MANY WITNESSES IS THE
LEAST BIT RELIABLE" types of questions/gripes posted regularly by the
CT-Kook brigade?
Todd has been taking you (Mr. Healy) apart in a neighboring thread;
and now I have to do the same in this one.
And you said you have "40 years in the business" (D. Healy;
04/05/07)??
I assume you mean 40 years studying the evidence surrounding the JFK
murder case, correct?
Based on your posts today, it would appear that perhaps 39.5 of those
40 years were spent merely watching the paint dry in your CT BatCave.
In Todd's thread you also seemed to have no idea that Will Fritz even
testified in front of the Warren Commission.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
No wonder you usually keep your mouth shut around here and choose only
to perform lapdog duties for Ben and/or Walt. ;)
>>> "You going to launch into a William Manchester-like description -- Have no fear in my challenging Manchester's feeble work of alleged history, either." <<<
WTF? Why is Mr. Manchester suddenly brought into a discussion about
the hard, raw evidence of Oswald's guilt?
Did your mind wander?
>>> "Deal with Mark Lane's defense of LHO {re. Tippit's murder}. Be an upright Nutter, tell us." <<<
I already have -- right here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f
Now, if you want to know how I'd deal with Mr. Lane's defense of
Oswald in other "Tippit murder" areas (the above Lane-destroying
example deals only with the disgraceful way Lane treated Helen
Markham) -- I would, of course, call to the witness stand the several
witnesses who positively identified Oswald as Tippit's killer (or IDed
Oswald as the only man who was running away from the crime scene with
a gun).....
Davis, Davis, Markham, Scoggins, Tatum, Callaway, Reynolds, and
Patterson.
I'd then call to the stand the many law-enforcements officers who
would testify to the fact that the four bullet shells in evidence
matched Oswald's .38 revolver "to the exclusion".
I'd then recall Joseph Nicol to the stand, who would say.....
"On specimen 603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient
individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that
projectile was fired in the same weapon {Oswald's .38 revolver} that
fired the projectiles in 606."
In my final arguments to the jury I would remind the jury that
Oswald's gun (the one that Nicol linked one of the Tippit bullets to)
was the same gun that Oswald had ON HIM in the theater as he tried to
use it on Officer McDonald during the wild scuffle within the theater.
I'd also remind the jury about Johnny Brewer's observations.....
"He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him
some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when
you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny.
His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running,
and he looked scared, and he looked funny." -- J.C. Brewer
What's Mr. Lane going to do after all of the above people testify?
Will he try to make them ALL out to be liars, or cover-up agents? All
of them?
Lane wouldn't stand a chance in court re. the Tippit matter. The
reason being, of course.....Oswald was guilty; and the evidence proves
it.
>>> "Everywhere the Nutters turn, a plethora of questions..." <<<
Of course there are "questions". And almost all of them are being
asked by inventive "I NEED A CONSPIRACY" conspiracists, whose
imaginations rival Walt Disney's. Jim Garrison being a prime example
(among many).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e730615fc2a0a14
Is this the best your "40 years in the business" can muster?
If so, it would seem as if Vince Bugliosi is home free before Page 1
of "RH" is even examined.
======================================================
MORE CONSPIRACY-BASHING FUN:
======================================================
Walt
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
>
> John K. Lattimer's work for yet another.....
>
>
> Gerald Posner's very good book...to name another pro-LN bright spot
> (CTer criticism notwithstanding, of course).....
>
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired
in this weapon?
Mr. Cunningham.
No; I was not.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you explain why?
Mr. Cunningham.
Yes, sir.
First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were
not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this
bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been
fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic
marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an
examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or
not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from
one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's
revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to
determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this
revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type
of determination?
Mr. Cunningham.
Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing
marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet
would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be
due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W
barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and
thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be
impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> ======================================================
David Von Pein
whatsoever in fact.
And Nicol's testimony only adds an extra LAYER of proof tying Oswald
and Oswald's gun to the Tippit murder.
But even without Nicol, Oswald is guilty via the remainder of the
evidence. Can there be ANY doubt of that? (Except to you kooks who
MUST have LHO innocent of this crime too?)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:5093-461...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
David Von Pein
But by far the biggest monument we can attribute to Oliver Stone is
that mile-high monument of BULLSHIT within his 3-hour motion picture
that Vince B. gets to untangle in Chapter 33 of "R.H.". Thanks,
Ollie! .....
Table of Contents for "Reclaiming History" (tentative):
Dedication
Introduction
1.) "Four Days In November"
2.) "The Investigations"
3.) "President Kennedy's Autopsy And The Gunshot Wounds To Kennedy And
Governor Connally"
4.) "The Most Famous Home Movie Ever, The 'Magic Bullet', And The
Single-Bullet Theory"
5.) "Lee Harvey Oswald"
6.) "Oswald's Ownership And Possession Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth
Floor"
7.) "Identification Of The Weapon"
8.) "Oswald At The Sniper's Nest And 'Evidence' Of His Innocence"
9.) "Motive"
10.) "The Grassy Knoll"
11.) "A Conversation With Dr. Cyril Wecht"
12.) "Secret Service Agents On The Grassy Knoll"
13.) "The Zanies (And Others) Have Their Say"
14.) "Other Assassins"
15.) "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"
16.) "Introduction To Conspiracy"
17.) "History Of The Conspiracy Movement"
18.) "Mark Lane"
19.) "Mysterious And Suspicious Deaths"
20.) "The Second Oswald"
21.) "David Lifton And Alterations Of The President's Body"
22.) "Ruby And The Mob"
23.) "Organized Crime"
24.) "CIA"
25.) "FBI"
26.) "Secret Service"
27.) "KGB"
28.) "Right Wing"
29.) "LBJ"
30.) "Cuba"
31.) "The Odio Incident And Anti-Castro Cuban Exiles"
32.) "Cover-Up By Federal Agencies Of Alleged Conspiracy To Murder
President Kennedy"
33.) "Jim Garrison's Prosecution Of Clay Shaw And Oliver Stone's Movie
'JFK'"
34.) "Conclusion Of No Conspiracy"
35.) "The Murder Trial Of Jack Ruby"
36.) "A Conversation With Marina"
37.) "Kennedy-Lincoln Coincidences"
38.) "The People And Groups Involved In The Plot To Kill Kennedy"
39.) "Epilogue"
40.) "In Memoriam"
Acknowledgments
Bibliography
Index
Todd W. Vaughan
See, you don't know the case, do you.
I did not attend, nor have I seen or heard any tapes of the debates,
but I'm positive I have the dates and the places from an article
in....wait for it......my files. I'll have to try and find them for
your this weekend. I'm also certain that I don't have any transcripts.
And a quick search on yahoo and google (without using the dates and
pleaces mind you) produced no results.
>
> > You really don't know what you're talking about.
>
> my gosh -- this Nutter is predisposed to what? Whispers of the tarot
> cards? Links to the debate will be just fine -- Let Cter's review the
> "debate" between DBugliosi and Lane, or you just spoofing us?
No spoof, but no big claims either, see above.
>
> > Bugliosi
>
> > > certainly doesn't want a confrontation or pissing match with STONE --
> > > Bugliosi needs Oliver Stone's-JFK, just like David Reitzes needed
> > > Stone, like McAdams needs Stone and all you weak kneed Nutter sistah's
> > > need Oliver Stone's JFK....
>
> > > Nutter's need a fictional account of the assassination to bray at, and
> > > a fictional LHO mock trial to throw their support behind....thus
> > > offseting any serious consideration for what the WCR omitted and "bent
> > > the truth" (gentle), if not out-right lied about... talk about a
> > > fictional account of the JFK assassination, the WCR is "farcical"....
> > > How's that Webster?
>
> > > We call that "shuck-n-jive", David... A neutered *cop* out...- Hide quoted text -
>
> what no comment Todd? Tell us shuck-n-jive doesn't offend you....
Coming from you....maybe.
>
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Cunningham's testimony does no harm to the case against Oswald. None
whatsoever in fact.
You're just being obstinate....
Read what Cortland Cunningham said after he had fired many rounds
through the barrel of that pistol.
Mr. Cunningham.
Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing
marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet
would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be
due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W
barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and
thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be
impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
Translation .... The pistol COULD NOT produce ballistic
characteristics consistantly. Cunningham was unable to retrieve just
two bullets after firing many rounds from that pistol under very
carefully controlled lab conditions.
The FACT is NO NO bullet could be ballistically traced to that pistol
because Cunningham testified to that FACT.
Nicol claimed he matched one of the bullets from Tippit's body to that
gun..... How could he do that when Cunningham hsd testified that it
was impossible?
Cunningham was attempting to retrieve just two bullets that would have
some of the same markings on them, and he couldn't do it under
carefully controlled lab conditions, but Nicol claimed he was able to
perform the impossible with a bullet that had been fired through the
heavy fabric of a policeman's jacket, a pack of cigarettes and a
couple layers of clothing....Gimme a break. Do you really believe
this crap Pea Brain?
Walt
Walt
This appears to be an all out effort to force the big lie down the
throats of the American public...... I predict it will be a gargantuan
FLOP. There just isn't that much interest in the murder
anymore.....The American public has moved on to more important
things ....like "Survivor", or "The Soprano's". So the general public
is going to fork over 25 bucks for a heavy and substandard baby booser
seat, CT's still have an interest in the murder, but they won't buy
it because they all know it's a pile of BS. ..... So who will buy the
book, public libraries, DVP and Daffy.......and maybe a few other
private citizens.
I'll guarentee that nobody will make it into a block buster movie like
JFK.
Are you a gambler Von Pea Brain?..... I'd like to make you a bet.
Walt
aeffects
of course you DO -- please search high and low, I await the result of
your search..... perhaps you can find those files while searching for
those other files you need in responding to Ben, eh?
aeffects
Wasn't for Oliver Stone David, you'd be still writing I Love Lucy
reviews. Be thankful, Stone has given you direction in life. Frankly,
I think [40] above would work better as [1] -- his work is DOA... it's
all over but the burial! read: same'o-same'o
what, no dedicated chapter concerning Zapruder film alteration, I'm
crushed..... LMFAO
Todd W. Vaughan
David,
Among other things I have 3, 5 drawer file cabinets of JFK files in a
storage unit a 20 miles from where I live due to a move some months
back. Now that the weather is breaking, I home to have those cabinets
home soon.
But I also have about 50 banker boxes of JFK material in my basement.
I'm almost certain the Bugliosi material is in one of those boxes.
It'll be a pleasure indeed to find the dates this weekend, post them,
and prove you wrong yet again. While I search, why don't you hold your
breath? That shouldn't be too difficult, as your head seems to
normally be up your ass anyway.
Todd
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175844879.0...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "The ARRB and JFK Records Act are indeed monuments to Oliver Stone."
>>>> <<<
>
> And a bigger monument of BULLSHIT that Vince B. gets to untangle in
> Chapter 33 of "R.H."......
tomnln
WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175865911.7...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
AGAIN"
WHO is toad vaughaN?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175876135....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Doesn't matter. Oswald HIMSELF was SEEN dumping shells at the Tippit
scene. And those shells were linked to the gun on Oz when arrested.
Plus: The witnesses (a mile deep) IDed Oz.
All of the above is trumped by Cunningham, per a kook named Walter.
And even Cunningham's testimony, as I mentioned, doesn't exonerate
Oswald....because Cunningham doesn't say Oz's gun was definitely NOT
the murder weapon.
Try another tack, Walt.
Why not try making up some shit like--say--this:
The killer was really on the OTHER SIDE of Tippit's patrol car when
Tippit was shot....so it couldn't have been Oswald!
Walt
> >>> "The FACT is NO NO bullet could be ballistically traced to that pistol because Cunningham testified to that FACT." <<<
>
> Doesn't matter. Oswald HIMSELF was SEEN dumping shells at the Tippit
> scene. And those shells were linked to the gun on Oz when arrested.
> Plus: The witnesses (a mile deep) IDed Oz.
Oh really..... I'll ignore Helen Markham's and Dom Benavides
DESCRIPTIONS for the moment. And ask you Did any of the witnesses
actually KNOW Lee Oswald from previous encounters, so they could with
out a doubt KNOW that the fleeing man was in FACT Oswald. Could it
not have been a man who RESEMBLED Oswald? Were there any fingerprints
or DNA left at the scene that would indicate that Oswald was there?
Can you explain how Oswald could have gotten from the roominghouse to
10 and Patton in less than five minutes? Oswald's landlady ( a
person who knew him by sight) said he was STANDING at the bus stop in
front of the roominghouse at about 1:04. and witnesses at the murderd
scene said that Tippit had been shot before 1:10. The distance betwen
the rooming house and the murder scene was nearly a mile.
>
> All of the above is trumped by Cunningham, per a kook named Walter.
Surely you are smart enough to understand that the pistol could NOT
produce two bullets that could be comparred against each other to
obtain a positive conclusion that they both had been fired from the
same gun.... aren't you?
>
> And even Cunningham's testimony, as I mentioned, doesn't exonerate
> Oswald....because Cunningham doesn't say Oz's gun was definitely NOT
> the murder weapon.
>
> Try another tack, Walt.
>
> Why not try making up some shit like--say--this:
>
> The killer was really on the OTHER SIDE of Tippit's patrol car when
> Tippit was shot....so it couldn't have been Oswald!
Utterly stupid....sounds like one of the Warren Commissions tales.
Walt
Walt
That's true..... But here in the U.S. our laws say the state must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bullet DID come from that
gun.
Let me ask you something Pea Brain.....( think I might as well direct
the question to the door knob) You seem to be acknowledging that the
pistol could NOT produce any bullets that could be compared
ballistically.( And that shows that you aren't as stupid as some
LNer's.)
So...If it was impossible for the gun to produce bullets that could be
positively identified as having been fired from that gun, and yet the
Warren Commission called in an "expert" who would say he had matched
one bullet to that gun, ( an impossibility) doesn't that reveal
anything to you about the honesty of the warren commission?
I know it's kind of a convoluted question .... but I think you're
smart enough to get my drift.
Walt
David Von Pein
That's not ultimately REQUIRED to convict a person, if there's a lot
of OTHER stuff that shows Oswald to be the triggerman "beyond a
reasonable doubt".
It's not JUST the bullets themselves that need to be looked at in this
case, goof.
And Nicol DID say he thought one bullet linked to Oz's .38 "to the
exclusion". So his testimony must be weighed as well.
And when weighed with the witnesses and those SHELLS FROM OZZIE'S
GUN....and the jacket....and the fact that Oswald was acting "funny"
in the same general area of the murder shortly afterward (and the fact
he sneaked into a dark theater while "running from you guys for some
reason" {Postal})....
Does this add up to an innocent Patsy? Or a look-alike Oswald who just
happened to dump shells from a gun the REAL Oswald would have on him
half-an-hour later?
>>> "If it was impossible for the gun to produce bullets that could be positively identified as having been fired from that gun, and yet the Warren Commission called in an "expert" who would say he had matched
one bullet to that gun, (an impossibility) doesn't that reveal
anything to you about the honesty of the warren commission?" <<<
So you want to believe that Joe Nicol was a WC "plant", right?
It figures.
You think everything stinks.
But, as mentioned, the bullet matches aren't overly important when
weighed against the flood of other evidence showing your hero to be
guilty of Officer Tippit's murder.
Why won't you give up and simply admit that Oswald killed Tippit. You
could at least save a small amount of face prior to 05/29/2007, when
"RH" emerges to make you look ever more like an idiot if you choose to
cling to your current stupid beliefs re. Oswald and the Tippit
murder....and the JFK crime too, for that matter, of course.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90
David Von Pein
Who just happened to dump bullet shells from a gun that the real Lee
Oswald would have on him in the Texas Theater at 1:50?????
Walt -- use your head...and any common sense that remains in you.
>>> "Can you explain how Oswald could have gotten from the roominghouse to 10th and Patton in less than five minutes?" <<<
And can you explain WHY you continue to peddle your "I HAVE A VERIFIED
TIMELINE" crap re. Tippit's killing?
There's no firm, established timeline. None. All times are
estimates....and even those "estimates" are pretty close to having
Oswald being there at approx. 1:15.
And the BEST "timeline" to use would be the official DPD radio logs
(of course). And they pinpoint the murder just slightly prior to 1:16
PM. (Unless you want to think that the first radio call by the
citizens watching the murder didn't occur for about 8-10 minutes after
the shooting. That sounds kinda silly to me.)
>>> "Oswald's landlady (a person who knew him by sight) said he was STANDING at the bus stop in front of the roominghouse at about 1:04." <<<
It wasn't the landlady...but that's a minor quibble. But, again,
that's a loose estimate re. the time. But she might be correct. If so,
Oswald's still got 10 to 12 minutes to travel the 0.85 mile to get to
10th & Patton. It was doable, esp. considering we have no idea how
quickly Oswald was moving.
>>> "And witnesses at the murder scene said that Tippit had been shot before 1:10." <<<
You just won't give up on the idea that you've got FIXED IN STONE
times, will you Walt? Bud has straightened you out on this "timeline"
matter at least 10 times in the past. And he makes sense too. But you
refuse to use any CS&L re. these times of yours.
And you seem to totally DISCOUNT the BEST "timepiece" of them all,
that being the DPD radio logs. The 1:16 time fits nicely with Oz
killing Tippit a minute or two prior to that time. But you want the
murder "before 1:10" based on probably less-reliable timekeepers
(Bowley/Markham). Why?
>>> "Surely you are smart enough to understand that the pistol could NOT produce two bullets that could be compared against each other to obtain a positive conclusion that they both had been fired from the same gun...aren't you?" <<<
We've had this argument (up above). Nicol said one bullet did match.
But even without a firm match....those bullets COULD have still come
from Oswald's gun. Why do you ignore that info?
>>> "Utterly stupid....sounds like one of the Warren Commissions tales." <<<
Sure it was utterly stupid. That's why I figured it was something you
would likely accept as fact. ;)
Walt
> >>> "But here in the U.S. our laws say the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the bullet DID come from that gun." <<<
>
> That's not ultimately REQUIRED to convict a person, if there's a lot
> of OTHER stuff that shows Oswald to be the triggerman "beyond a
> reasonable doubt".
>
> It's not JUST the bullets themselves that need to be looked at in this
> case, goof.
>
> And Nicol DID say he thought one bullet linked to Oz's .38 "to the
> exclusion". So his testimony must be weighed as well.
>
> And when weighed with the witnesses and those SHELLS FROM OZZIE'S
> GUN....and the jacket....and the fact that Oswald was acting "funny"
> in the same general area of the murder shortly afterward (and the fact
> he sneaked into a dark theater while "running from you guys for some
> reason" {Postal})....
>
> Does this add up to an innocent Patsy? Or a look-alike Oswald who just
> happened to dump shells from a gun the REAL Oswald would have on him
> half-an-hour later?
>
> >>> "If it was impossible for the gun to produce bullets that could be positively identified as having been fired from that gun, and yet the Warren Commission called in an "expert" who would say he had matched
>
> one bullet to that gun, (an impossibility) doesn't that reveal
> anything to you about the honesty of the warren commission?" <<<
>
> So you want to believe that Joe Nicol was a WC "plant", right?
I knew I could have asked the door knob and got about the same answer.
NO I do not think Nicol was a W.C. plant......That wasn't the
question. I'll ask it again
If it was impossible for the gun to produce bullets that could be
positively identified as having been fired from that gun, and yet the
Warren Commission called in an "expert" who would say he had matched
one bullet to that gun, (an impossibility) doesn't that reveal
anything to you about the honesty of the Warren Commission?"
Psssst....the question is about the honesty of the Warren Commission.
Walt
> >>> "Could it not have been a man who RESEMBLED Oswald?" <<<
>
> Who just happened to dump bullet shells from a gun that the real Lee
> Oswald would have on him in the Texas Theater at 1:50?????
>
> Walt -- use your head...and any common sense that remains in you.
>
> >>> "Can you explain how Oswald could have gotten from the roominghouse to 10th and Patton in less than five minutes?" <<<
>
> And can you explain WHY you continue to peddle your "I HAVE A VERIFIED
> TIMELINE" crap re. Tippit's killing?
>
> There's no firm, established timeline. None. All times are
> estimates....and even those "estimates" are pretty close to having
> Oswald being there at approx. 1:15.
>
> And the BEST "timeline" to use would be the official DPD radio logs
> (of course). And they pinpoint the murder just slightly prior to 1:16
> PM. (Unless you want to think that the first radio call by the
> citizens watching the murder didn't occur for about 8-10 minutes after
> the shooting. That sounds kinda silly to me.)
No they did NOT pinpoint the murder as taking place just before 1:16
That's when TF Bowley notified the dispatcher.Tippit had been dead for
several minute at that time.
Just before 1:16 is when TF Bowley contacted the dispatcher ( he gave
the address as 404 E.10th )
Bowley said he looked at his watch as he got out of his car after
seeing Officer Tippit lying on the street, He said the time was 1:10.
After trying to help Tippit he used Tippits radio to contact the
dispatcher it was nearly 1:16. Seems reasonable that almost six
minutes could pass between his arrival and the radio call.
David Von Pein
Therefore, Walt, you're saying that the WC knew for a fact what Nicol
would testify to before he ever even examined the 4 Tippit
bullets....is that it?
As if there would have been any need to call in an expert who would
(falsely?) testify that a Tippit bullet could be linked to Oz's gun.
Even without Joseph Nicol in the mix at all, the score is 21-0 in
favor of "Oswald Did It". But, per Walt, I guess the WC wasn't happy
with a 21-run lead....they needed a 22-0 victory instead. <chuckle>
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Housekeeper Earlene Rolberts has Oswald has Oswald leaving 3 or 4 munites
Later.
Then she has Oswald Standing at the bus stop a munite or so LATER.
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
TWO minutes later Helen Markham saw Tippit killed.
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
THERE's your "Timeline" and, it's Official.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175893618....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Actually, given the circumstances, the Bowley "1:10" time is pretty
close to being accurate.
But kooks like Walt are willing to let a killer go free based on 4 to
6 minutes in a purely-estimated timeline given by witnesses....with
Walt ignoring the hardest evidence of Oswald's guilt ---
Oz is in the area WITH A GUN (determined to be THE gun that killed
Tippit).
The bullet shells.
The multiple witnesses who fingered Oswald.
Johnny Brewer's observations.
The jacket-shedding that Oz performed between 10th and Jefferson.
Nicol's testimony re. the bullets.
Yep---let's let the bum have a free murder based on those 4 to 6
minutes! That'd be best, huh?
Pathetic...as usual.
tomnln
later".
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
Left in 3 or 4 minutes.
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
Saw Oswald at the bus stop a minute or so LATER.
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
Helen Markham saw Tippit shot at 1:06.
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
EVEN the WCR has Oswald Leaving the room ing house at 1:03.
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
THERE is your Offricial TIMELINE.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175897921.0...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Wow, Walt! A whopping 4- to 6-minute timeline difference!
>
> Actually, given the circumstances, the Bowley "1:10" time is pretty
> damn close to be accurate.
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175865911.7...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175801347.4...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> To aeffects.......
>
> We all know you CT-Kooks couldn't live without a "Conspiracy" to latch
> onto. It's your air. It's your food. It's your reason for living.
> (Certainly your whole reason for taking up space in this place.)
>
> And a whole bunch of you kooks RIGHT HERE in the asylum DO believe in
> (or say you do anyway) EXACTLY what Oliver Stone's film is portraying
> -- i.e., OSWALD WAS JUST A PATSY AND NEVER KILLED ANYBODY (NOT EVEN
> TIPPIT).
>
> And now you're calling Stone's film a "fictional account of the
> assassination"???
>
> So, Oswald, then, WASN'T "just a patsy" in your eyes I guess...right
> Dave H.?
>
> Oswald DID at least kill Tippit in your view, huh David?
>
> If Stone's film is "fictional" (as you just admitted)....what's
> "fictional" about it in your view? Let's hear it.
>
Todd W. Vaughan
> On Apr 6, 6:25 am, "Todd W.Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 6:09 pm, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > your this weekend. I'm also certain that I don't have any transcripts.
> > And a quick search on yahoo and google (without using the dates and
> > pleaces mind you) produced no results.
>
> of course you DO -- please search high and low, I await the result of
> your search..... perhaps you can find thosefileswhile searching for
David,
Bugliosi debated Lane as follows:
2 December 1986, Boston, Simmons College
15 April 1992 Long Island, Nassau Community College
San Francisco, date and location unknown
I don't have any other details at this time.
Todd
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > You really don't know what you're talking about.
>
> > > my gosh -- this Nutter is predisposed to what? Whispers of the tarot
> > > cards? Links to thedebatewill be just fine -- Let Cter's review the
aeffects
When you have the time to review other detail[s], does your source
show or mention 'formal debate' between the two, or both were part of
a 'panel discussion'?
Thank you!