David Von Pein: ***Please*** keep posting on Amazon!!! :O)
SecretServiceguy
please keep posting!!!! :O) It seems your insane jealousy over myself
and Horne are really paying literal dividends. Please post some more
cut-and-paste Bugliosi infatuation stuff, too :)
Vince Palamara
http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2009/02/vince-palamara-leading-civilian-secret.html
This is one of the better responses to DVP yet:
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 19, 2009 8:00 PM PST
W. Glynn says:
Did you read Palamara's review? He didn't say that both books are
"correct" or that both books are "true". He said Bugliosi's book
presents a good case (after all, Bugliosi is a former prosecutor, it
should), cleans up a bunch of junk and it is still a terrific book,
but Horne's book trumps it - essentially saying both the prosecution
and the defense put forth good arguments and reasoning, but the
defense case is the better case. [REREAD THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, DVP
lol :) ]Frankly, I was surprised that Bugliosi's book was able to sway
Palamara or any other serious student of the case, but I am impressed
with his mea culpa (and in my opinion, coming to his senses). His (un)
steady opinions indicate an open mind, a willingness to listen to
another side. Bugliosi's book is persuasive, but it is, in many
places, innacurate. It is clearly written by a (former) prosecutor,
who by definition is charged with presenting a persuasive argument but
not necessarily a complete picture based on a dogged pursuit of the
truth. So, Palamara was swayed by Bugliosi. However, he hadn't heard
Horne's "defense case" at that point (I haven't either, yet) and was
open to hearing the other side and made a clear statement of which
case he thought was better.
The Tippit case is even less persuasive than the case for Oswald shot
JFK alone. That's not to say that Oswald couldn't have done it, but
there is less evidence to show he did. In fact, if it were true that
Oswald did shoot Tippit, it would be an even stronger data point that
Oswald didn't shoot JFK (I'll let you think about that statement).
So, why is it that (presumably) reasonable people willing to take an
objective look at the data come to dramatically different conclusions?
Because the data is conflicted. I say data, because so much of it has
been lost, tainted, and otherwise rendered inadmissible in a court of
law (e.g., broken chain of custody). So, when looking at the
conflicted data, you need to downplay or discount some evidence -
everybody does regardless of which theory you believe (Oswald or
Conspiracy) because the evidence is in contradiction with itself. So,
the difference lies in what data you choose to keep, what you choose
to ignore or discount, and how you put the pieces together. Those
decisions are influenced by such thinking as "the government said it
so it must be a lie/fact". The tool of determination is the logic you
apply to data inclusion/exclusion and what data makes sense together
and what doesn't, what data seems logical and what data violates
logic. So, when I hear something like "Oswald the marksman had enough
time to take three shots from a distance of only 88 yards and kill
JFK", I think "a marksman, huh (putting aside the fact that I
qualified as a marksman the first time I ever fired a rifle, which
takes a lot of shine off of the term "marksman") took 3 shots that got
progressively better at a moving target and the first shot missed, not
just missed JFK, but missed every passenger in the limo, missed the
secret service car just behind the limo, missed the motorcycle escort
on both sides, and missed the freakin' limo altogether!!". So, I
think, is it likely or logical for the marksman to completely miss the
entire target area on the first shot and then pull off a head shot a
few seconds later? While my logic doesn't prove that it didn't or
couldn't happen, it certainly provides a perspective of how to view
some of the data. So, what data did you dump on the floor in order to
reach a conclusion?
David Von Pein
>>> "It seems your insane jealousy over myself and Horne are really paying literal dividends." <<<
LOL.
Are you getting a pct. of the book sales, Vince?
David Von Pein
>>> "Please post some more cut-and-paste Bugliosi infatuation stuff, too." <<<
But, Vince, I thought it was your opinion that Mr. Bugliosi's book was
still to be considered a "masterpiece" [12/15/09 Palamara quote]:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/59b037514a801633
But according to Palamara's latest flip-flop, Bugliosi has obviously
got things ALL WRONG in "Reclaiming History" (particularly regarding
the following quotes in "RH" concerning Palamara's latest savior,
Douglas P. Horne)....and yet Bugliosi's book is STILL considered a
"masterpiece" by Mr. Palamara (even though "RH" is TOTALLY WRONG about
a whole bunch of critical stuff).
Right, Vince P.?
Mr. Palamara has apparently convinced himself that UP is DOWN.
============================================
"Before Doug Horne, the main beef that most conspiracy theorists
had with the autopsy surgeons was their alleged incompetence. But
thirty-five years after the assassination, Horne showed all these
naive, whippersnapper conspiracy theorists a thing or two. Humes and
Boswell weren't incompetent. They were criminals and co-conspirators.
"One would think that Horne would be ashamed of himself for
writing the memorandum he did. But to the contrary, he is very
proud. ....
"A great number of nuts have kept pumping out conspiracy
theories for years. But these are private nuts, on the outside as it
were. But when someone like Horne, working for an official review
board of the federal government, someone we expect to be responsible,
can author a document that couldn't possibly be any sillier or
transparently irresponsible, then unfortunately we know that the
notion of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination will be alive and
well until the crack of doom.
"I suppose it is a given that there will be other Doug Hornes
who will breast-feed the conspiracy loonies for generations to come
with their special lactations of bilge, blather, and bunk.
"One wants to take earnest, well-intentioned, and intelligent
people like Drs. David Mantik and Gary Aguilar seriously, even though
neither of them are pathologists. But when they take someone like Doug
Horne seriously, and accept his outrageous and patently false theory
as completely valid, it becomes much more difficult to take them
seriously." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 435-444 of "Reclaiming
History"
============================================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1d034f32416ff7b6
http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
============================================
David Von Pein
>>> "please keep posting!!!!" <<<
Why? It seems to be fruitless, because the Amazon.com staff will just
see fit to delete the most important (and lengthiest) of the sensible
posts that I write there. They've already deleted two of my posts
about Horne's books.
Apparently free speech isn't too free after all at some Internet
locations.
~shrug~