Battling Anti-Bugliosi Bullshit
David Von Pein
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=62685&mesg_id=62685&page=
One of the mega-kooks at the JFK-Lancer forum named Anthony Frank
uttered the following totally-untrue nonsense (under the ridiculous
thread title of "A BUGLIOSI LIE").....
================
"In a totally fabricated accusation, Bugs's book {"Reclaiming
History"} displays the Altgens photo showing Lovelady in the TSBD
doorway and, after stating that it is Lovelady, Bugs makes the claim:
"Many conspiracy theorists insist it is Oswald, proving that he was
not in the sniper's nest." .... The entire CT community is aware that
it is Lovelady. No one thinks that it is Oswald."
[End Kook Quote.]
================
Mr. Frank, who, as I mentioned, is a total off-the-wall mega-
conspiracy-kook of the first order (I've battled him many times in the
past, only to have logic fly straight over his empty head), had the
balls to label his post above "A Bugliosi Lie", even though he must
surely know from being a part of the "CT community" for years (unless
he's a bigger kook than even I thought) that there are still several
CTers out there who do still believe that Oswald was in that doorway
and was photographed by James Atlgens.
Just a few months ago, in fact, I saw some postings from some CTer who
still was of the opinion that it was probably Oswald (and not Billy
Lovelady) standing in the doorway.
Even Jim Garrison kept on believing the Oswald-In-Doorway silliness
for YEARS after it was cleared up that it was Lovelady and not LHO
(via Lovelady's own 1964 testimony, where Billy draws an arrow to
himself on a Commission exhibit).
But even that type of proof wasn't good enough for people like
Garrison and Mark Lane, the latter also trying to prop up the notion
that it was Oswald as late as 1967.
I'm not too sure Garrison or Lane ever did totally give up on the idea
that it was Oswald. Lane might still have his doubts about it for all
I know. And Robert Groden too.
In fact, upon doing just a brief search at this very forum, I found
the following three threads (there are no doubt many others) where
people are still talking about the possibility of Oswald being Doorway
Man. And these discussions were taking place more than 35 years after
the whole controversy had been fully cleared up:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b5d2b0357cb967d6
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2e8710f8ec077e45
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4797cf65d5c5b98d
But my main point here is to show what lengths certain conspiracy
lovers will go to in order to use one of their favorite words -- LIE.
CTer Tony Frank comes right out in a thread-starting discussion and
boldly accuses Mr. Bugliosi of an outright "lie"; when, in reality,
Vince never lied at all. Because, as VB says, "many conspiracy
theorists" DO, indeed, still cling to the notion that Oswald was in
the doorway.
So, where's the lie??
Answer: There is none.
I've seen thread after forum thread being started up by rabid
conspiracists who insist that Bugliosi has "lied", "fabricated"
something, or "deliberately distorted" this or that.
And, to quote VB, it's nothing but pure "moonshine" coming from rabid
CTers who will never give up on the idea of a JFK conspiracy, with
many of these kooks belonging to the even more-rabid "Anybody But
Oswald" club, to boot.
These kooks will nitpick every single thing Mr. Bugliosi has said in
his ultra-comprehensive publication (if you can actually get them to
READ the whole book and CD-ROM and evaluate the SUM TOTAL of evidence
that Mr. Bugliosi has laid out in massive detail in "Reclaiming
History", which is something that a rabid CTer is not very likely to
do at all).
And the CTers will also wrangle over things that are (in many
instances) totally subjective in nature. And they will blatantly come
right out and call a respected former Deputy District Attorney an
outright "liar", or they'll appear on Internet radio shows and have
the immense gonads to say that VB's book has been "ghostwritten" by
many different authors.
And they will do all of this without a shred of substantive proof to
back up their allegations. And then, like flies drawn to fly paper,
many other CTers will follow the leader and will faithfully believe
every single anti-VB word written by other conspiracy clowns.
David Lifton's "It Was Ghostwritten" accusation is a perfect example
of this. The mere ALLEGATION of "RH" being the work of several
different uncredited authors was enough to make other CTers right here
on this forum leap into bed with Lifton and parrot the very same
accusation.
It's pathetic.
I wonder what the next scathing unprovable, unsupportable accusation
will be? Maybe somebody will accuse Vincent Bugliosi of being in
Dallas on November 22, 1963, and playing a part in the grandiose
conspiracy to murder our President and to cover up the truth
afterward.
A conspiracy-loving kook with an imagination that has run amok and a
computer keyboard in front of him is NOT a pretty combination.
As Mr. Bugliosi said about Oliver Stone's craziness on page #1386 of
"Reclaiming History" .... "There oughta be a law against things like
this."
YoHarvey
> www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
David? How nutty is Frank? So glad I have the following:
Over a period of months in early 1984, I spent time at the White House
and met with President Reagan on a number of occasions. On various
occasions I met with Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger at the
Pentagon, in addition to meeting more than once with Secretary of
State George Schultz, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, CIA
Director William Casey, and with other people on President Reagan's
national security team.
I was also on Capitol Hill and I testified while both Houses of the
United States Congress met together in secret closed-door sessions
several times. Every member of the 98th Congress was present at the
closed-door hearings.
The high-level meetings and the closed-door Congressional sessions
took place in 1984 because I exposed massive KGB infiltration of the
CIA, and every member of the 98th Congress was made acutely aware of
it during the closed-door Congressional sessions.
I uncovered the KGB infiltration during my initial contact with the
CIA as a private citizen in 1977 and I tried in vain to expose it for
seven years before meeting with success in 1984. Some of the CIA field
agents that I interacted with during those seven years filed
intelligence reports about the KGB infiltration, but it did not yield
any results because KGB officers had seniority over the field agents
that filed the reports. The KGB officers also held sway with the CIA
hierarchy, and they had considerable influence with President Carter
and his CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner, from 1977 to 1981.
When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, their influence extended
to CIA Director William J. Casey and Vice President George H. W. Bush,
their former CIA Director.
In 1984, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, former CIA Director William Colby,
and former Deputy Director Frank Carlucci all cooperated with me in
exposing the KGB infiltration, regardless of the fact that CIA
Director William Casey tried to interfere. There were 497 Soviet KGB
officers and over 800 double agents in the CIA when they were exposed.
The exposure of the KGB officers was, of course, never made public.
Renegade CIA officers were entrenched in the CIA hierarchy and at many
levels of the CIA in 1984 when the KGB infiltration was exposed. Since
then, they have made strident efforts to determine who will hold
Office in the United States Congress and in the Office of President of
the United States.
The idea to determine who will hold Office in the United States
Government originated with the KGB officers inside the CIA in the
early 1950s, which is when they initiated efforts to sabotage
democracy in the United States. They continued to build on that
initiative until they were exposed in 1984. When they were exposed,
the KGB officers admitted to killing thirteen of the fourteen Members
of Congress who died from unnatural causes from 1957 to 1983. They
also admitted that they had plans to assassinate five of the seven
U.S. Presidents who held office during that time frame as they sought
to exercise influence and control in the United States Government.
Renegade CIA officers, like their KGB progenitors, have killed Members
of Congress.
After the exposure of the KGB officers, renegade CIA officers adopted
the methods employed by the KGB in killing Members of Congress and
they adopted the methods employed in trying to control the United
States Government. They began their quest to control the United States
Government within months of the KGB being exposed in 1984, and they
began killing Members of Congress five years later in 1989. Their
killing spree continued on through the election of President George W.
Bush.
Renegade CIA officers first killed four Members of Congress in less
than a two-year period from 1989 to 1991. Among the wholly verifiable,
publicly known factors in those four deaths and in the thirteen deaths
that the KGB admitted to are:
Four vehicles became instruments of death for Members of Congress who
were not on board the vehicles on four separate occasions.
The pilot of a Congressman's plane "appeared nervous and even ran the
aircraft off the taxiway shortly before take off."
A plane with a Member of Congress onboard crashed because of a "broken
crankshaft."
A plane with a Member of Congress onboard crashed because of a
"severely worn part" in the "propeller control unit."
A helicopter crashed into a Senator's plane after flying towards it to
"inspect the landing gear," but documents released by the NTSB
"indicated there had been no reason for the pilot to ask the
helicopter to check the gear."
A Congressman named Mills allegedly left "at least seven" suicide
notes in 1973 when it was reported that prior to his special election
in 1971, his campaign had received "an unreported cash transfer of
$25,000" from President Nixon's campaign.
"One official said that in one of the notes, Mr. Mills said 'he had
done nothing wrong but said he couldn't prove it, and so there was no
other way out.'"
Two Congressmen have been "presumed dead" since October 1972 when a
plane that they weren't supposed to be on during a trip that they
didn't have to make disappeared in the Alaskan wilderness.
And as I cited in my last post,
No one in Congress has been killed in a traffic "accident" since three
traffic "accidents" killed Members of Congress in 1957, 1959, and
1965.
In the last of the three traffic "accidents," a truck driver ran his
tractor-trailer off the road in 1965 and then ran down a Congressman,
allegedly because the truck driver had cataracts on both of his eyes,
suffered from high blood pressure and asthma, and had exceeded the ICC
limit on maximum hours of service.
The 1957 and 1959 traffic "accidents" each took place in the
Congressman's hometown, and they marked the beginning of the KGB's
twenty-six year killing spree, but no one in Congress has died while
driving in their hometown since 1959.
In 1957, a train engine (just an engine; not a train) smashed into a
Congressman's car in his hometown of Rome, Georgia.
In 1959, a Congressman crashed into an elevated train pillar "early"
one day in his hometown of Chicago, and police said that he "had
apparently fallen asleep at the wheel or had been cut off by another
car."
Deep-rooted corruption existed at many levels of the CIA in 1984 due
to the KGB's insidious machinations over more than thirty years of
time. The KGB's efforts to sabotage democracy in the United States
Government caused bipartisan corruption to reach into the upper
echelons of both the 98th Congress and the Reagan Administration.
I was intent on "publicly" exposing what I knew about the KGB
infiltration and the corruption that existed in the CIA in 1984 (which
ABC newsman Sam Donaldson can certainly attest to), but the CIA had
been so corrupted, especially the hierarchy, that renegade CIA
officers were easily able to act as a Praetorian Guard to prevent me
from exposing anything. They did what was necessary to make sure that
I did not succeed, and they have taken whatever actions necessary
since 1984 to block my efforts.
Those who were in the 98th Congress knew very well that renegade CIA
officers were entrenched in the CIA in 1984, especially in the CIA
hierarchy, and that the CIA had become very corrupted. But
Congressional rules on "Intelligence Oversight" and bipartisan
corruption in Congress, particularly in the hierarchy of Congress and
on the Oversight Committees, prevented individual Members of the 98th
Congress from doing anything about the corruption in the CIA and the
corruption in Congress. Democrats and Republicans were also concerned
with the political ramifications of exposing corrupt members of their
own party.
In the early 1950s, more than three decades before I exposed the KGB
infiltration, the KGB officers had begun handling American
intelligence officers targeted for political office. Some of the most
powerful Senators and Congressmen over the years have been in the CIA
while they were in Congress, and KGB officers inside the CIA were
handling them. They've ranged across the political spectrum from the
far left to the far right, as both groups were easy to exploit while
CIA officers established themselves in the government, supporting
liberal and conservative causes.
The KGB officers also had an intelligence officer targeted for the
Oval Office in every Presidential race from 1964 until they went to
jail in 1984. They succeeded in actually getting a CIA officer onto
either the Democratic or Republican ticket four times, but they failed
to do so in the 1968 Presidential race, and their candidate in the
1972 Presidential race had to withdraw after being chosen as a Vice-
Presidential running mate, all of which is detailed herein.
Having CIA officers in Congress is clearly a violation of the United
States Constitution.
Article I, section 6, states: "No Person holding any Office under the
United States shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance
in Office."
A partial list of other CIA officers targeted for political office, in
addition to Senator Eagleton, Congressman McDonald, and George H. W.
Bush, includes current Senators Edward Kennedy, Chris Dodd, and
Barbara Mikulski, and former Senators Barry Goldwater, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, Claiborne Pell, and Walter Mondale, and former Congressman
Edwin Forsythe.
Eight of these CIA officers were in Congress in 1984 and George H. W.
Bush was Vice President. There were other CIA officers in Congress in
1984 and some of them, besides Senators Kennedy, Dodd, and Mikulski,
may still be in Congress.
The job of CIA officers is to gather intelligence. CIA officers in
Congress were there to advance the CIA's agenda and to gather
intelligence on Members of Congress. A CIA paper on the CIA's
Counterintelligence history states that by the mid-1970s, there were
intelligence files on "some 30-40 U.S. Congressmen."
The KGB officers admitted that they were responsible for the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The assassination
was carried out by two of the KGB officers and a double agent (an
American intelligence officer who knowingly and willingly worked for
the KGB).
Intrinsic to the KGB's one and only successful assassination of a
United States President is the fact that the Secret Service is the
CIA. CIA officers began taking over Secret Service duties as a result
of legislation passed in 1951. The fact that the Secret Service is the
CIA is highly classified and intelligence officers must have a "need
to know" before they are privy to this information. It is also a
violation of the CIA's charter, which bans the CIA from engaging in
"internal security functions." The United States Congress confirmed in
closed-door testimony in 1984 that the Secret Service is the CIA.
(The KGB officers also used CIA officers with "Secret Service" covers
when they provided would-be assassin John Hinckley with access to
President Reagan in 1981 so that they could catapult Vice President
George H. W. Bush into the Presidency.)
The KGB officers were also planning on assassinating President
Kennedy's successor, President Lyndon Johnson, on Saturday, October
31, 1964, three days before the Presidential election. But that plan
went awry when Suffolk County Police discovered the man that the KGB
officers were going to accuse of being the assassin. He was parked
along the motorcade route with a telescopic rifle on the seat beside
him and a loaded shotgun in the trunk, all because of "a bet with
barroom acquaintances that he could do what he did without being
detected." Johnson's motorcade "had been expected to make a number of
stops along the motorcade route," but those plans changed when Suffolk
County Police discovered the man with the rifle. {Dallas Morning News,
11-1-64, page 10}
Their intention in this two-pronged assassination plan was to have a
CIA officer that they were handling, far-right segregationist Senator
Barry Goldwater, elected to the Oval Office in 1964.
Besides all the obvious reasons for wanting an intelligence officer
under their control as President, such as access to the most sensitive
information that the United States has, the main reason for the KGB
wanting Goldwater as President was that he was a segregationist and he
would be their foremost asset to exacerbating the very tense racial
situation of the 1960s.
The civil rights movement had grown through the 1950s and was reaching
its height by 1963, but Goldwater, as a segregationist, opposed it and
Goldwater's support was mainly in the South, where civil rights and
integration were vehemently opposed. Exploiting the racial tension was
the KGB's primary focus to incite the masses and cause turmoil in the
United States throughout the 1960s. The fact that 100 years earlier
the United States was embroiled in a civil war over the rights of
African-Americans was undoubtedly not lost on the KGB.
The KGB officers were hoping that "President" Goldwater's far right
views and his support for segregation would lead to an actual revolt
in the United States that would launch the country into turmoil and
lead to the violent overthrow of the United States Government. If
Goldwater had, upon winning the election, talked about nominating
Supreme Court justices and federal judges who would support
segregation, the KGB officers would assume that they were well on
their way to accomplishing their objective even before Goldwater had
been sworn into office.
Their failure to get Goldwater into the Oval Office didn't change the
KGB's intention to use the long tentacles of the CIA to create racial
strife.
The Rockefeller Commission, officially known as the Commission on CIA
Activities within the United States, stated, "In 1963 and 1964, civil
rights disturbances occurred in Birmingham, Savannah, Cambridge
(Maryland), Chicago, and Philadelphia. Early in 1965, serious disorder
took place in Selma, Alabama, and in August of 1965 the Watts section
of Los Angeles became the scene of massive rioting and destruction. By
1966, news coverage of domestic turmoil had almost become a part of
everyday life in the United States."
"Although severe racial rioting had occurred in United States cities
in previous summers, it had never been as widespread or as intense as
it became in 1967."
In the cities of Newark and Detroit, "conditions of near-insurrection
developed in ghetto areas."
The KGB officers had undoubtedly seen the dichotomy between President
Kennedy and segregationist Senator Barry Goldwater. The official White
House website states that President Kennedy "took vigorous action in
the cause of equal rights, calling for new civil rights legislation."
Barry Goldwater testified before the House of Representatives in 1984
that he was in the CIA and that he personally knew CIA officers who
had been exposed as KGB officers. At another point in 1984, he
admitted to having specific knowledge of the fact that his CIA
colleagues had killed President Kennedy, and he admitted to knowing
that they had plans to assassinate President Johnson on October 31,
1964.
Before 1984, the closest any of the KGB agents had ever come to being
exposed was during the 1950s when Senator Joseph McCarthy said he had
a list of a few dozen people who were secretly Communists, but
McCarthy then began accusing thousands of people of being Communists.
Some of these people were simply vouching for the credibility of what
they thought were loyal Americans, and others were just antithetical
to McCarthy's heavy-handed tactics. McCarthy's effort itself would
have been easy to infiltrate and sabotage by anyone who masked their
intentions with a zeal to expose Communists.
"McCarthyism" was born and McCarthy's effort failed miserably. The KGB
continued to bring agents into this country, agents who would assume
the identities of deceased Americans and join the CIA throughout the
1950s. McCarthy was ultimately beneficial to them because they were
much better off when McCarthy and his effort lost all credibility.
Besides killing President Kennedy and their intention to kill
Presidents Johnson and Reagan, they planned on killing President
Richard Nixon in 1972 and President Ford in 1975. The idea behind
killing Nixon was that Spiro Agnew, a very unpopular Vice President,
would become President and subsequently lose the Presidential election
to Senator George McGovern while McGovern's running mate, Senator
Thomas Eagleton, would be elected to the Vice Presidency. They would
then assassinate President McGovern to catapult Vice President
Eagleton into the Presidency. When the plan to kill Nixon failed, they
orchestrated the Watergate break-in to discredit Nixon but they still
failed to prevent his re-election.
They also failed to get Eagleton onto the Democratic ticket with
George McGovern, as McGovern was forced to make a second choice for
his running mate after first choosing Eagleton at the Democratic
National Convention in 1972.
A CIA study on "Soviet Strategic Executive Action" in October 1961
states that the KGB and Soviet military intelligence, the GRU,
endeavor to "remove the threat to Soviet interests posed by certain
members of Western governments, sometimes arranging for the dismissal
of such persons from public office, at other times even having them
'eliminated' physically." 654
Every Member of the 98th Congress was acutely aware that there were
Members of Congress in the CIA, and they were also made aware that the
KGB officers had killed Members of Congress, but as cited earlier,
Congressional rules dictated that the Congressional Intelligence
Oversight Committees must handle intelligence matters, and several of
the CIA officers in Congress were on the Intelligence Oversight
Committees.
The preponderant attitude amongst the powers-that-be and the power
brokers in Congress, and the preponderant attitude in the Reagan
Administration, was that the American people should not find out about
this pernicious corruption. Republicans and Democrats were focused on
the upcoming elections and primaries in 1984, and on the political
battles between the Reagan administration and the Democratically-
controlled House. The Reagan Administration and the United States
Congress had no intention of exposing massive bipartisan corruption in
1984 or doing anything about the corruption in the CIA.
© 2006 Anthony R. Frank: All rights reserved.
So there you have it. Like I said, I don't need proof, I was there.
You won't have your proof until the government comes clean on the
closed-door hearings in 1984. Republican leader Bob Michel asked me if
the government should tell the American people that the CIA killed
President Kennedy, but he also said that they wouldn't tell them
anything about the KGB infiltration or why Kennedy was killed. I told
him that it would be a gross cover-up to do that.
Tony
aeffects
I'm sure you are, you fraud....
> A helicopter crashed into a Senator's plane after flying ...
>
> read more »
aeffects
[...]
> David Lifton's "It Was Ghostwritten" accusation is a perfect example
> of this. The mere ALLEGATION of "RH" being the work of several
> different uncredited authors was enough to make other CTers right here
> on this forum leap into bed with Lifton and parrot the very same
> accusation.
care to post a few cites, confirming that! You know David Von Pein,
the continuing RC charade fell apart weeks ago..... You lost, get over
it! Other books-dvd's to sell
> It's pathetic.
ole Vin's secretary sure hightailed out of Amazon, didn't she? Think
she wanted out for the obvious reason? That backfired on your sorry PR
program too, didn't it! I bet the CTer's on this board sold more books
for Vin than your *entire* internet PR campaign....
>
> I wonder what the next scathing unprovable, unsupportable accusation
> will be? Maybe somebody will accuse Vincent Bugliosi of being in
> Dallas on November 22, 1963, and playing a part in the grandiose
> conspiracy to murder our President and to cover up the truth
> afterward.
>
> A conspiracy-loving kook with an imagination that has run amok and a
> computer keyboard in front of him is NOT a pretty combination.
>
> As Mr. Bugliosi said about Oliver Stone's craziness on page #1386 of
> "Reclaiming History" .... "There oughta be a law against things like
> this."
there certainlt should, Bugliosi should be tarred and feathered.
Tarred and feathered for foisting 1600+ pages of utter nonsense on the
American public.....
> http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
David Von Pein
Memory loss is, indeed, a sign of approaching Alzheimer's.
>>> "The continuing RC charade fell apart weeks ago." <<<
I didn't know there was any "charade" involving RC-Cola. Hmmm. Curious
indeed. (I'm a Pepsi man myself. YMMV.)
>>> "Ole Vin's secretary sure hightailed out of Amazon, didn't she? Think she wanted out for the obvious reason? That backfired on your sorry PR program too, didn't it? I bet the CTer's on this board sold more books for Vin than your *entire* internet PR campaign." <<<
Still managing to believe in things that you made up out of whole
cloth, huh Davey? Well, that's all part of being a good CT-Kook I
guess (i.e., ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER!).....with your imaginary
"Internet PR campaign" being a perfect example.
>>> "Bugliosi should be tarred and feathered. Tarred and feathered for foisting 1600+ pages of utter nonsense on the American public." <<<
What difference does it make to you anyway? You certainly never read
the book. You're way yonder too lazy to take on that much reading
material.
And anyone who is stupid enough to think that Abe Zapruder just might
not have been filming the motorcade AT ALL on 11/22/63 is certainly
not going to be able to absorb 2,800 pages of VB's CS&L. No way. No
how. You'd better stick to CT stuff, like Mr. "Zapruder Hoax" Fetzer.
BTW, I suppose (per your kook rules) that it's perfectly okay for pro-
conspiracy authors like David Lifton, Judyth Baker, Jim Marrs, and
Bonar Menninger (among many others) to "foist" their "utter nonsense
on the American public"....right kook?
aeffects
> >>> "Care to post a few cites, confirming that!" <<<
>
> Memory loss is, indeed, a sign of approaching Alzheimer's.
>
> >>> "The continuing RC charade fell apart weeks ago." <<<
>
> I didn't know there was any "charade" involving RC-Cola. Hmmm. Curious
> indeed. (I'm a Pepsi man myself. YMMV.)
you know what they say: diet-pepsi means hair-loss
> >>> "Ole Vin's secretary sure hightailed out of Amazon, didn't she? Think she wanted out for the obvious reason? That backfired on your sorry PR program too, didn't it? I bet the CTer's on this board sold more books for Vin than your *entire* internet PR campaign." <<<
>
> Still managing to believe in things that you made up out of whole
> cloth, huh Davey? Well, that's all part of being a good CT-Kook I
> guess (i.e., ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER!).....with your imaginary
> "Internet PR campaign" being a perfect example.
not my burden toot's..... can't help the simple fact, Lone Nutter's
can't sell the WCR..... latest failure: Reclaiming History by Vincent
Bugliosi
> >>> "Bugliosi should be tarred and feathered. Tarred and feathered for foisting 1600+ pages of utter nonsense on the American public." <<<
>
> What difference does it make to you anyway? You certainly never read
> the book. You're way yonder too lazy to take on that much reading
> material.
Last time i read something near that long was The Rise and Fall (next
to the 26 volumes of course -- you ever read all 26 volumes?)
> And anyone who is stupid enough to think that Abe Zapruder just might
> not have been filming the motorcade AT ALL on 11/22/63 is certainly
> not going to be able to absorb 2,800 pages of VB's CS&L. No way. No
> how. You'd better stick to CT stuff, like Mr. "Zapruder Hoax" Fetzer.
perhaps you can positively ID ole Abe just by looking at DP films and
photos? If so, you win the *golden weanie* you'll be only one in
America....
> BTW, I suppose (per your kook rules) that it's perfectly okay for pro-
> conspiracy authors like David Lifton, Judyth Baker, Jim Marrs, and
> Bonar Menninger (among many others) to "foist" their "utter nonsense
> on the American public"....right kook?
last I heard Vin B enjoyed the right to free speech. Last issue was
Reclaiming Histroy.... same rights afforded others. Now I understand
Vin didn't hit the best-seller list as did other[s] (know who I
mean?). Something else on your mind.
tomnln
WHO is this TURD?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
WHAT should he be addressing?>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188004431.9...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Š 2006 Anthony R. Frank: All rights reserved.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/82b841c26d7095e1/1ee2bfdf35815aee?hl=en#1ee2bfdf35815aee
>>> "I recently purchased Bugliosi's book at the airport, excited to read the newest truths in the cover-up of our dear President Kennedy. Within 60 seconds of walking towards my airline gate, I read the jacket cover, only to release [realize?] that it was the same whitewash as the WC Report. I immediately turned around, asked and received my money back." <<<
Oh brother.
Yeah, it's always a good idea to dismiss all 2,800+ pages (including
CD-ROM notes) of a 21-years-in-the-making publication (which has
10,000+ citations/source notes in it) due to a knee-jerk reaction from
having looked at the dust jacket at the airport.
No wonder there are so many ill-informed CTers amongst us.
You readily admit that you expected Bugliosi's book to be pro-
conspiracy in nature. But when you found out it wasn't, you (in
essence) tossed it in the nearest trash can without reading a word of
what this respected former Deputy D.A. had to say.
How could you possibly know it was nothing but a "whitewash" without
reading the first page?
I'd be willing to bet some serious cash that you have never read the
Warren Report all the way through either. Which, as Mr. Bugliosi has
said in his book, is just plain ludicrous for a person who wants to
fairly evaluate both sides of the debate.*
* = If you, Nancy, have indeed read the entire Warren Report, I
apologize in advance. But, if so, you're definitely in the minority
among your fellow conspiracists.
Or, to quote Vince Bugliosi.....
"The conspiracy community, a potent and formidable body through the
decades, has by sheer force of numbers clearly dominated the debate in
front of a national audience, one which apparently hasn't minded
hearing, for the most part, only one side of the story." -- From Page
999 of "Reclaiming History"
>>> "The fact remains that our government was involved in the assassination and cover-up of our president." <<<
Yeah, that's always a good blanket excuse to use when you're caught
with a total lack of evidence to support your vast "conspiracy" --
i.e., just blindly claim "Our Government was involved". That usually
goes down well with 75% of America. It has so far anyway.
Why not actually try READING what Mr. Bugliosi has written, instead of
tossing it aside because of a dust-jacket blurb? (And that dust-jacket
blurb, btw, certainly wasn't written by Bugliosi himself. Those are
W.W. Norton's words printed there.)
David Von Pein
tomnln
Did Bugliosi "thoroughly reseasrch" every issue that he addresses in his
book?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1188073973.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...